# Study 000M Audit

## Audit Result

`Pass.`

The study answers `Q006` directly and stays inside the evidence.

## What Holds Up

- The study uses corrected archive outputs rather than pre-audit ecology assumptions.
- The answer is stronger than descriptive drift because it ties narrowing to successful-expression and burden outcomes.
- The study does not collapse into `treadmill good / outdoor bad`.
- The multiple-mode finding from `000K` is treated as a refinement rather than a contradiction.

## Main Risks Checked

### Risk 1

`Overclaiming intent`

Status:

- controlled

Why:

- the study uses language such as `better explained by`, `appears`, and `supported`

### Risk 2

`Ignoring hybrid-cardio correction`

Status:

- controlled

Why:

- the study explicitly uses the corrected hybrid-window evidence from `000C`

### Risk 3

`Confusing narrowing with one-place simplification`

Status:

- controlled

Why:

- the study explicitly notes selective support retention and multiple successful modes

## Audit Verdict

`000M` is strong enough to mark `Q006` as addressed, while leaving narrower child questions about support retention and hybrid ecology open.