Contract-Governed Multi-Agent Graph Orchestration for Long-Horizon Autonomous Research Pipelines

Contribution-and-evidence summary: The manuscript delivers the proof-first contribution the user asked for. It defines a bounded contract semantics for Quarks-style research orchestration, proves a composition theorem, a branch-local memory lemma, and an assurance-boundary theorem with a restricted positive corollary, and ties each core claim to named manuscript loci, theorem-audit artifacts, counterexample bundles, and executed symbolic checks. The proof-versus-audit distinction is stated clearly, the abstract reports only executed or derived results, the bibliography resolves cleanly, and the main body length is above the minimum budget. Substantive strengths: the manuscript is disciplined about regime boundaries; it does not overclaim beyond finite typed non-merge workflow DAGs, sound adapters, admissible aggregators, branch-local append-only memory, and the restricted property class. The related-work framing, formal setup, and appendix support are all substantive rather than token bridge text. Substantive weaknesses: no remaining scientific blocker was found, but some publication-facing presentation details still lag behind the strength of the technical content. Open questions: branch-merge semantics and broader validator coverage remain real research questions rather than defects in the current claim set. High-leverage improvement directions: keep the proof package exactly as narrow as it is now, but polish the camera-ready presentation so artifact labels and appendix references look as rigorous as the underlying mathematics. Minor polish: fix the duplicated equation-reference rendering in the appendix, replace remaining raw export-style identifiers in manuscript-adjacent artifacts, and optionally reduce caption-like in-figure titles.

- The manuscript matches the proof-first user intent and domain fit: it is organized around definitions, assumptions, a theorem/lemma/corollary chain, proofs, counterexamples, and proof-supporting audits rather than misplaced benchmark rhetoric. - Core claims are evidence-closed. The composition theorem, memory lemma, and assurance-boundary theorem each terminate in named manuscript loci, theorem-audit artifacts, counterexample material, and executed validation outputs. - Claim scope is scientifically disciplined. The paper explicitly confines positive results to finite typed non-merge workflow DAGs with sound adapters, admissible aggregators, branch-local append-only memory, and a restricted typed property class. - The literature framing is substantive and honest about provenance: older contract and runtime-verification sources are treated as article-level lineage, while manuscript-defined formal objects are disclosed instead of being falsely presented as inherited results.

No major weaknesses were flagged in the final review pass.

- What merge algebra or reconciliation contract would be needed to extend the current single-active-branch theorem package to guarded branch merges without breaking provenance or admissibility guarantees? - How far can validator coverage be strengthened beyond the restricted typed property class before positive assurance claims require a different proof substrate or a truly empirical semantic-quality benchmark?

- Preserve the current narrow theorem scope in any follow-up work and extend it only by adding a formally explicit branch-merge model rather than by softening the prose around out-of-regime cases. - If the paper is prepared for publication, make the supporting tables and figures look as formal as the proofs by replacing machine-oriented labels with publication-facing terminology and by keeping caption semantics in LaTeX captions instead of in generator titles. - Carry the same provenance discipline used in the theorem package into any future empirical extension so that new semantic-quality claims are separated cleanly from the existing typed-admissibility guarantees.