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 5. Read current explorers/coordination, previous integrations, pre-final costs; inspect key role claims. Own only kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/curiosity-exploration/turn-05/critic.md; no delegation. Test final proposed account and stop/trial recommendation. Avoid both unsupported adoption and dismissing curiosity because not novel or immediately useful. Is ordinary explanation-seeking rival genuinely strong? Does requiring observable selection disagreement before another trial overconstrain unfamiliar inquiry? Distinguish evidence for role contribution from causal necessity. Identify final report's consequential qualifications, resource/retention limits and literature gaps. 900-1400 words.