This is the independent AGY peer review for Paper 5, round 4.

### 1. Rechecking the Round 3 Absence Finding
The round 3 review claimed that `LabelEvaluation` and its associated test were absent. This finding is explicitly contradicted by the provided working tree:
- `src/Foundational/Quantum.hs` clearly contains `LabelEvaluation`, `mkLabelEvaluation`, and `sameLabelsDistinctEvaluations` (lines 92–119).
- `test/Spec.hs` contains the explicit test case `"pairs the same typed labels with distinct normalized evaluations"` (lines 149–157).
- The test logs confirm that this compliance suite was executed and passed with 0 failures.

The code was successfully supplied, rendering the round 3 objection resolved.

### 2. Verification of Compliance Corrections
- **Lean `OperationalBridge` Scope:** I have reviewed `FoundationalReformulation/Quantum.lean`. The code perfectly matches the requested correction. The `OperationalBridge` is explicitly documented as a "non-enforcing finite schema projection." The proposition slots (e.g., `sequentialAssociative : Prop`) are grouped at the bottom with a clear comment stating that they "merely name caller-supplied proposition slots" and "do not state laws about the operations above."
- **CE-P5-06 Witness Separation:** The generic phantom-typed `LabelEvaluation` witness in Haskell is distinctly implemented and separated from the instrument update tests (`MeasurePrepareInstrument`). It correctly acts as a computational witness that the same probability-free outcome labels can admit multiple distinct normalized evaluations.

### 3. Manuscript, Scientific Hypotheses, and Statuses
I scanned the manuscript and reports for any residual overstatements or incorrect scopes:
- **Formalization Scope:** The manuscript (Abstract, Section 3.1, Section 20) correctly identifies that neither executable layer formalizes an imported reconstruction theorem.
- **Statuses:** All 23 assumptions are properly recorded as `UNVALIDATED`. Claims `P5-C01` through `P5-C04` and `P5-C06` are `OPEN`. Claim `P5-C05` is correctly `OBSTRUCTED` and addressed via the explicit case table mapping out the incompatible scalar, dimensional, and superselection alternatives.
- **Route Separation:** The text maintains the strict separation between the CDP operational principles, the Barnum-Wilce HSD/Jordan comparison route, and the downstream Gleason/Busch probability representation theorems. The distinction between a POVM and an instrument (CE-P5-10) is intact, and the boundary concerning interpretation and collapse remains fully acknowledged.

### Actionable Findings
None. All required theoretical boundaries, code implementations, and manuscript alignments are exactly in place.

VERDICT: ACCEPT