Critic assignment

Read completely kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/curiosity-exploration/README.md, kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/bootstrap-exploration/second-exploration-brief.md, kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/README.md, AGENTS.md and kb/work/COLLECTION.md. These bind purpose, scope, evidence, coordination, acceptance and stop conditions. No code, experiments, implementation, commits, extraction, deletion or library/index edits. No new source destination allocated; return ungrounded literature leads as leads, not source-backed conclusions. Existing grounded Quotes may support claims; source analysis is not support. Only A turn 1 had source mutation ownership. Choose methods and research judgments within scope; escalate purpose/authority changes, return partial on missing evidence/tools. Validate owned result. Distinguish source claims, documentary observations, conjectures and demonstrations; preserve strongest rival, discriminating evidence, recoverability needs and reason for parked alternatives. Keep learning value distinct from task benefit; do not force compression scores, text shortening or service-first admission. Fresh critic turn 2. Read turn-02/coordination.md, explorer-a.md, explorer-b.md and prior integration. Own only kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/curiosity-exploration/turn-02/critic.md. No delegation. Check crucial evidence and distinguish correcting a citation, revising an explanation and making a causal discovery. Does documentary success justify learning-progress claims? Are acquisition gaps treated honestly? Identify what practical mechanism can now select another question without becoming retention schema or service-first gate. Test strongest rival and missing evidence, preserving qualitative inferential claims that don't predict events. 900-1400 words.