R07 verification A — Gemini deep-research report (raw-inputs/gemini-2026-09-09.md)
Verifier: Claude (citation-verifier subagent) · Date: 2026-09-10 · Protocol: v1.4 two-check identity (Crossref REST + OpenAlex, both must agree for PASS) plus claim-support against retrieved text · All resolution run live inside the context-mode sandbox. No verdict below is from memory; where a text could not be retrieved the verdict is UNCHECKABLE, not a guess.
Registries and texts used: Crossref REST (api.crossref.org/works/<doi>; bibliographic search for non-DOI tuples) · OpenAlex (api.openalex.org/works/https://doi.org/<doi>) · Europe PMC REST (search + fullTextXML PMC10847352 for Velechovský) · Semantic Scholar graph API (abstracts for Elsevier titles) · Unpaywall (OA-copy lookup) · MDPI PDFs via mdpi-res.com (crude stream extraction; MDPI HTML/PDF endpoints returned empty bodies) · IJAT PDF (fetched, 475 KB; fonts not extractable, abstract via Crossref) · waterboards.ca.gov cannabis-policy page · LII 4 CCR §15723 / §15724 / §15728. ASHS (journals.ashs.org), ScienceDirect and Taylor & Francis refused sandbox requests; abstracts for those came from Crossref/OpenAlex/Semantic Scholar.
Verdict keys — IDENTITY: PASS (both registries agree with the tuple as written) / PARTIAL (paper exists and DOI resolves to it, but one or more stated elements — authors, title, volume, pages, S-number — are wrong; sub-types: author-year misattribution, fabricated venue elements, wording partial) / FAIL (sub-types: nonexistent DOI, wrong-object DOI, fabricated tuple) / UNRESOLVED (bare author-year with no tuple and no unique registry match). CLAIM: YES / PARTIAL / NO / UNSOURCED (number stated with no source that contains it) / UNCHECKABLE (text not retrievable or absence-type claim).
1. Source-by-source identity table
| # | Report’s tuple (as written) | Resolved tuple (live, both registries) | IDENTITY | Where cited | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Velechovský J, Kyselka J, Toufarová J, Bjelková J, Tlustoš P (2024). Effect of augmented nutrient composition and fertigation system on yield and secondary metabolites of medicinal cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.). Front. Plant Sci. 15:1322824. 10.3389/fpls.2024.1322824 (S-205) | DOI resolves (Crossref + OpenAlex agree) to Velechovský J, Malík M, Šenkyřík JB, Tlustoš P (2024). Effect of augmented nutrient composition and fertigation system on biomass yield and cannabinoid content of medicinal cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivation. Front. Plant Sci. 15:1322824. PMC10847352 | PARTIAL — author-year misattribution + wording partial (three of five authors do not exist on the paper; two real co-authors omitted; title altered). DOI and S-205 correct. | Sec. I #1, B1, B3, D, H25, H27, M1, C002, C004, C016 | Corpus S-205 registers the correct author list. |
| 2 | Punja ZK, Scott C, Lung S (2021). Several Pythium species cause crown and root rot on cannabis… Can. J. Plant Pathol. 43(sup2), S116–S129. 10.1080/07060661.2021.1954695 (S-116) | DOI resolves to Punja, Scott, Lung (2021), same title, Can. J. Plant Pathol. 44(1):66–81 | PARTIAL — fabricated venue elements (volume, issue, pages invented); paper and authors real. S-116 misattributed (see §3). | Sec. I #2, C, E1, H27, M9, C009, C015 | Abstract: 7 licensed greenhouses, 140 diseased plants, 95 isolates; species P. myriotylum (43), P. dissotocum (35), P. catenulatum (12), P. aphanidermatum (3), G. ultimum (2). |
| 3 | Punja ZK, Rodriguez G (2018). Fusarium and Pythium species infecting roots of hydroponically grown marijuana… Can. J. Plant Pathol. 40(4):498–513. 10.1080/07060661.2018.1535466 | Same (Crossref + OpenAlex) | PASS | Sec. I #3, E1, C009 | Abstract: hydroponic plants 2014–2017; P. dissotocum, P. myriotylum, F. oxysporum, F. solani. Substrate types not named in abstract. |
| 4 | Caplan D, Dixon M, Zheng Y (2017a). Optimal rate of organic fertilizer during the vegetative-stage… HortScience 52(9):1307–1312. 10.21273/HORTSCI11903-17 (S-100) | Same | PASS (S-100 correct) | Sec. I #4, A3, B3, H27, M8, C006 | Crossref abstract retrieved (full text blocked by ASHS). |
| 5 | Caplan D, Dixon M, Zheng Y (2017b). Optimal rate of organic fertilizer during the flowering stage… HortScience 52(12):1796–1803. 10.21273/HORTSCI12401-17 (S-101) | Same | PASS (S-101 correct) | Sec. I #5, A3, B3, D, H27, M8, C007 | Crossref abstract retrieved; cultivar ‘WP:Med (Wappa)’; two substrates (U2-HP, U2). |
| 6 | Ahmed M, et al. (2023). Growth dynamics and yield formation of Cannabis… in differing growing media under semi-controlled greenhouse conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 203:117172. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117172 (S-096) | DOI resolves (both registries) to Schober T, Präger A, Hartung J, Hensmann F, Graeff-Hönninger S (2023), same title, Ind. Crops Prod. 203:117172 | PARTIAL — author-year misattribution (no author named Ahmed; the real authors are the Hohenheim group). S-096 misattributed (see §3). | Sec. I #6, A3, B3, D, H25, H27, M1, M2, C001, C003, C016 | No abstract exposed by Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar or Europe PMC; Unpaywall: no OA copy. Content claims therefore UNCHECKABLE. |
| 7 | Yep B, Zheng Y (2020b). Comparing hydroponic and aquaponic rootzones on the growth of two drug-type Cannabis sativa L. cultivars during the flowering stage. Ind. Crops Prod. 157:112881. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112881 | Same title/venue; authors Yep, Gale, Zheng (middle author omitted) | PASS (minor author omission noted) | Sec. I #7, A3, B3, H27, C002, C008 | Semantic Scholar abstract retrieved in full — see C008: the study as Gemini describes it does not match the paper. |
| 8 | Nemati R, et al. (2021). Growing Mediums for Medical Cannabis Production in North America. Agronomy 11(7):1366. 10.3390/agronomy11071366 (S-134) | Same (Nemati, Fortin, Craig, Donald) | PASS (S-134 correct) | Sec. I #8, A3, H27, C005 | Full PDF text extracted (mdpi-res.com). |
| 9 | Malík M, Tlustoš P (2025). Soilless Growing Media for Cannabis Cultivation. Agriculture 15(18):1955. 10.3390/agriculture15181955 | Same | PASS | Sec. I #9, A3, F3, H27, M6, C005, C010, C016 | Full PDF text extracted (mdpi-res.com). |
| 10 | Balliu A, Zheng Y, Sallaku G, Fernández JA, Gruda NS, Tüzel Y (2021). Environmental and Cultivation Factors Affect the Morphology, Architecture and Performance of Root Systems in Soilless Grown Plants. Horticulturae 7(8):243. 10.3390/horticulturae7080243 | Same | PASS | Sec. I #10, B2 | Review; not used for a numbered claim. |
| 11 | Saloner A, Bernstein N (2021). Nitrogen supply affects cannabinoid and terpenoid profile in medical cannabis. Ind. Crops Prod. 167:113516. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113516 | Same | PASS | Sec. I #11, H27 | Europe PMC abstract retrieved (THCA −69%, CBDA −63% from 30→320 mg/L N). |
| 12 | Caplan D, Stemeroff J, Dixon M, Zheng Y (2019). Vegetative-stage substrate composition effects on cannabis. HortTechnology 29(4):469–477. 10.21273/HORTTECH04332-19 | DOI resolves (both registries) to Shi L, Wang J, Gao Z, Zhao X, Di Gioia F, Guo H, Hong JC, Ozores-Hampton M, Rosskopf EN (2019). Economic Analysis of Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation for Open-field Fresh-market Tomato Production in Southwest and North Florida. HortTechnology 29(6):777–787. Crossref bibliographic search finds no Caplan/Stemeroff HortTechnology paper; nearest real item is Caplan, Dixon, Zheng (2019) Coir-based growing substrates for indoor cannabis production, Acta Hortic. 1266:55–62, 10.17660/ActaHortic.2019.1266.9 (no Stemeroff). | FAIL — wrong-object DOI + fabricated tuple | Sec. I #12, A3, H27 | Table-row content (“AFP >18% accelerated rooting velocity”) is therefore unsupported. |
| 13 | Yep B, Gale N, Zheng Y (2020a). Front. Plant Sci. 11:1169. 10.3389/fpls.2020.01169 | Same (Aquaponic and Hydroponic Solutions Modulate NaCl-Induced Stress in Drug-Type Cannabis sativa L.) | PASS | A3 | Table-row claim inverted — see §4. |
| 14 | Knight et al. (2010). Forensic Sci. Int. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.015 | DOI resolves (both registries) to Krishan K, Kanchan T, DiMaggio JA (2010). A study of limb asymmetry and its effect on estimation of stature in forensic case work. FSI 200(1–3):181.e1–e5. Real paper: Knight G, Hansen S, Connor M, Poulsen H, McGovern C, Stacey J (2010). The results of an experimental indoor hydroponic Cannabis growing study, using the ‘Screen of Green’ (ScrOG) method… FSI 202(1–3):36–44, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.022. | FAIL — wrong-object DOI (paper real, DOI belongs to another paper) | B3 | Abstract: 3 cycles × 6 plants; mean 687 g/plant, best cycle 881 g/plant; THC 4.3–25.2%. Gemini’s “350–500 g/m²” is not in the abstract. |
| 15 | Tebdoie et al. (2025). IJAT PDF URL (no DOI, no title given) | URL live (PDF 475 KB). Crossref/OpenAlex: Tebdoie C, Khana A, Pajareeyanont S, Deewatthanawong R, Kongchinda P, Montri N (2025). Optimizing simplified growing media to enhance cannabis cultivation. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 21(4):1521–1534. 10.63369/ijat.2025.21.4.1521-1534 | PASS (identity) — tuple incomplete as written | A3, B3, D | Content contradicted by the registry abstract — see §4. PDF fonts not extractable in sandbox; specifics (118.4 vs 109.6 cm, 12 L air-flow pots, n=5, 6 weeks) UNCHECKABLE. |
| 16 | PG&E / ETCC (2024), CR22PGE0101-1 (S-007) | Corpus S-007 (registered R05, dated 2022–24): Controlled Environment Horticulture: Energy Consumption and Environmental Control Field Study. Guessed ETCC URL returned 404; not re-resolved live. | PASS (corpus-registered) | F1, C012 | Year “2024” vs registered “2022–24” — minor. |
| 17 | California SWRCB Order WQ 2019-0001-DWQ | Exists: Cannabis Cultivation General Order, Order No. WQ 2019-0001-DWQ, adopted 5 Feb 2019 (Res. 2019-0007), effective 16 Apr 2019 (waterboards.ca.gov cannabis_policy page) | PASS | F2, C011 | Order text not retrieved; Gemini’s paraphrase (NPDES/POTW prohibition) UNCHECKABLE. |
| 18 | California DCC heavy-metal limits (Pb ≤0.5, As ≤0.2, Cd ≤0.2, Hg ≤0.1 µg/g) | 4 CCR §15723 (LII): inhalable action levels Cd 0.2, Pb 0.5, As 0.2, Hg 0.1 µg/g (non-inhalable: 0.5 / 0.5 / 1.5 / 3.0) | PASS — figures match the inhalable column | E2 | Gemini did not cite the section number; §15723 is the correct one. |
| 19 | Bernstein et al. (2019a) — bare | Crossref: Bernstein N, Gorelick J, Zerahia R, Koch S (2019) Front. Plant Sci. 10:736 (10.3389/fpls.2019.00736) and Bernstein, Gorelick, Koch (2019) Ind. Crops Prod. 129:185–194 both exist | PASS (bare; which “2019a” is meant is unstated) | H27 | Not tied to a numbered claim. |
| 20 | Shiponi & Bernstein (2021) — bare | Two real 2021 papers (Ind. Crops Prod. 161:113154; Front. Plant Sci. 12:657323) | PASS (bare) | B2 | — |
| 21 | Vergara et al. (2016) — bare | No Crossref bibliographic match for a 2016 Vergara cannabis terpene/terroir paper (hits: 2020 preprint, 2021 chapter, 2026 JCR) | UNRESOLVED | D (sensory table) | — |
| 22 | Zheng (2021) — bare | No unique match (“Zheng 2021 cannabis root rot Pythium” returns unrelated compendium entries) | UNRESOLVED | H27 | — |
| 23 | Desaulniers Brousseau et al. (2024a) — bare | = S-003 (ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 4(7):690–699, 10.1021/acsagscitech.4c00054); corpus note “potting media up to ~75% of outdoor GWP” matches Gemini’s use | PASS (corpus S-003) | F4 | — |
2. Claim-support table (R07-C001 – C016)
| Claim | Attributed statement (brief) | Cited source(s) | CLAIM | Basis (what the retrieved text actually says) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R07-C001 | Coir-perlite (AFP >20%) accelerates vegetative biomass/height vs potting soil; canopy fill 7–14 days sooner; 10 L pots; peat-perlite 70:30 / coir-perlite 70:30 / potting soil; drip | “Ahmed” (= Schober) 2023 | UNCHECKABLE (author misattributed; “7–14 days” UNSOURCED) | No abstract or OA text retrievable from any registry. Title confirms a growing-media × greenhouse trial; nothing else verifiable. The 7–14-day figure appears nowhere in any retrieved source. |
| R07-C002 | Flowering duration is invariant across substrate/architecture | Velechovský 2024; Yep & Zheng 2020b | NO | Velechovský: single substrate (expanded clay), two fertigation systems run as sequential cycles, plants harvested on a fixed weekly schedule (wk 7–13) — flowering duration was not an outcome. Yep 2020b (abstract): three rootzones in peat pots / DWC-aquaponics; outcomes were growth, physiology, yield, potency — not days-to-maturity. Neither source tests the claim. The descriptor “expanded clay vs soilless coir vs water culture” merges two studies neither of which used coir. |
| R07-C003 | Cannabinoid % invariant across peat/coir/soil at matched nutrition; high-CBD cultivar; HPLC | “Ahmed” (= Schober) 2023 | UNCHECKABLE | Paywalled; no abstract exposed. |
| R07-C004 | Recirculating raised total THC yield +182% vs +50.7% under DTW (each vs baseline), identical floral mass; 3.45 L pots / 3 L LECA; 9 pulses × 94 mL = 846 mL/d; P +93%, K +43%, Fe +940%; 0.5 m² per plant; 11-wk flowering; root-zone temp air-only | Velechovský 2024 (PMC10847352 full text) | PARTIAL | Full text: “Enriched nutrition, when compared with control, increased THC yield up to 50.7% [DTW, week 11 only], with a remarkable 182% surge in the recirculation system when compared with the drain-to-waste system” — the 182% is recirculation-vs-DTW (both ET), not ET-vs-control; Gemini’s comparator is wrong. Recirculating ET vs control: +402%/+315%/+46% at weeks 5/6/10 per m². Final inflorescence mass: “neither the altered nutritional regime … nor the type of fertigation system had a statistically conclusive effect” — supported. Confirmed: 3.45 L pots with 3 L expanded clay; 9 cycles/day × 60 s × 94 mL; capillary needle applicators; HPS 1,029 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹; 550 ppm CO₂; 25/22 °C air; n = 3; 7-day veg. Wrong: P/K/Fe increments are +83% P, +39% K, +860% Fe (wk 5–9); density is 27.5 plants/m² (55 per table), not 0.5 m²/plant. Omitted: 1C and 2C were sequential cycles, not parallel; fertigation ran only to week 9, then demineralised water; harvests continued to week 13. Substrate temperature not measured (air-temp-only descriptor is accurate). |
| R07-C005 | Raw coir CEC 40–100 cmol_c/kg, K⁺/Na⁺-saturated; unbuffered coir strips Ca/Mg | Nemati 2021; Malík & Tlustoš 2025 | PARTIAL (mechanism YES; number UNSOURCED) | Nemati: unbuffered coir “rich in sodium, potassium and chloride … risk of calcium and magnesium deficiency”; “fairly high cation exchange capacity”; buffering replaces Na/K with Ca — qualitative only, no cmol value. Malík: coir “elevated CEC”; RO water lets coir “absorb these critical nutrients [Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺] from the first fertigation”; CalMag pre-buffering recommended. The only numeric CEC in Malík is peat 100–200 cmol(+)/kg. No source gives 40–100 for coir. |
| R07-C006 | Optimal veg organic-N rate is substrate-dependent: 389 mg/L in fine coir-perlite, lower in coarse coir; 1.5 L pots; 21-day veg; rates 57–389 mg/L | Caplan 2017a | NO | Crossref abstract: “No differences in growth or floral dry weight (yield) were found between the two substrates. Pooled data … highest yield at 389 mg N/L.” Rates were 117, 234, 351, 468, 585 mg N/L (57–389 is a conflation with 2017b’s 57–283 range). Substrates were ABcann UNIMIX 1-HP vs UNIMIX 1 (WHC difference), not “pith+perlite vs pith+chips+fiber”. Trial ran to floral harvest (yield, THC measured), not a 21-day veg-only endpoint. Corpus S-100 note (“389 mg/L, verbatim”) agrees. |
| R07-C007 | Flowering organic-N ↑ raised floral yield +110% but diluted THCA 10.3% → 8.7%; 7.6 L pots; single coir substrate; 5 rates 57–284 mg/L N; 9-wk flower | Caplan 2017b | PARTIAL (direction YES; magnitudes UNCHECKABLE; descriptor partly wrong) | Abstract: rates 57–283 mg N/L (≈); “increasing fertilizer rate led to increased growth and yield but also to a dilution of THC, THCA, and CBGA” (direction supported); optimum 212–261 mg N/L in U2-HP, 283 in U2; cultivar ‘WP:Med (Wappa)’. Two substrates, not one (U2-HP produced 11% higher yield, 20% higher THC than U2). “+110%”, “10.3 → 8.7%”, 7.6 L pots and 9-week duration are not in the abstract; ASHS blocked full text. R06 verify-A (same paper) previously recorded the same non-reconstructible magnitudes. |
| R07-C008 | Supplemented aquaponic DWC ≡ hydroponic on yield and cannabinoids; 60 L DWC tubs; ‘Zenith’, ‘G1’; water 21.5 ± 0.8 °C; DO >7 mg/L; K + Fe supplementation | Yep & Zheng 2020b | NO — study description fabricated; central result inverted | Semantic Scholar abstract (full): cultivars ‘Nordle’ and ‘Sensi-Star’; rootzones were (1) 11 L pot, peat-based substrate, synthetic fertigation (“hydroponic”); (2) 11 L peat pot fertigated with aquaculture effluent; (3) 3 L peat pot with lower roots in an aquaponics DWC. “Plants performed best in the hydroponic rootzone: e.g., producing 42–116% greater inflorescence biomass than the other rootzone systems”; Nordle in aquaponics had higher THCA/CBDA/pinene/limonene. No K/Fe supplementation treatment, no 60 L tubs, no water-temperature or DO figures, no equivalence finding. |
| R07-C009 | Pythium ultimum, Globisporangium irregulare, Fusarium oxysporum colonize commercial coir and stone wool with high frequency | Punja 2021; Punja & Rodriguez 2018 | PARTIAL | Punja 2021 abstract: five Pythium spp. from seven licensed greenhouses (P. myriotylum 43, P. dissotocum 35, P. catenulatum 12, P. aphanidermatum 3, G. ultimum 2 isolates); pathogenicity tests in coco:perlite; no G. irregulare, no substrate-recovery frequencies. Punja 2018: hydroponic plants; P. dissotocum, P. myriotylum, F. oxysporum, F. solani; substrates unnamed in abstract. The species list Gemini gives (G. irregulare + P. myriotylum + F. oxysporum from coir and rockwool) is the finding of McGehee & Raudales 2021 = S-116, which Gemini tagged but never cited. Direction (root-rot pathogens recovered from commercial soilless crops) supported; “high frequency from coir and stone wool” not in the cited abstracts. |
| R07-C010 | Single-use stone wool: 0.30–0.50 kg wet waste/plant; >90% to landfill | Malík & Tlustoš 2025; “inheriting R04-C033” | NO — UNSOURCED | Malík (full text): rockwool “typically single-use in commercial practice”, “non-biodegradable, limited recycling”, “high embodied energy and disposal burden” — qualitative. No kg/plant, no landfill percentage, no waste mass-flow anywhere in the paper. R04-C033 (per Gemini’s own Section J) records the absence of such inventories. Tagged “modeled” but no model is shown. |
| R07-C011 | DTW at 15–20% leach discharges 15–25% of applied N/P/K; 45–125 g N and 15–40 g P per day per 1,000 plants | “Extending R06-C027”; SWRCB Order WQ 2019-0001-DWQ | NO — UNSOURCED | The Order is a regulatory instrument, not a measurement; no cited source contains runoff concentrations (150–250 mg/L NO₃-N etc.) or daily mass figures. Tagged “measured” with no measurement cited. |
| R07-C012 | 70–80% of applied irrigation recovered as condensate; up to 60–75% reduction in withdrawal | PG&E/ETCC CR22PGE0101-1 (S-007); R04-C018 | PARTIAL (corpus-level) | S-007 registration: “~70% of water → condensate” from two Sacramento facilities — supports the 70% anchor. The upper bound (80%) and the “60–75% reduction” figure are not in the corpus note; report text not re-read live (URL 404). |
| R07-C013 | Absence: no trained-panel / blinded consumer studies soil vs hydro | Gemini search log | UNCHECKABLE (absence claim) | Not adjudicable by citation check; Gemini’s Section L search syntax is stated. |
| R07-C014 | Absence: no multi-cycle indoor living-soil vs soilless trial | Gemini search log; R08-C030 | UNCHECKABLE (absence claim) | Consistent with R08-C030 as summarised in Gemini’s own Section J. |
| R07-C015 | Culture-based TYMC creates a 30–50% failure rate for living-soil crops | “Extending R06-C032”; Punja 2021 | NO | Punja 2021 is a Pythium crown/root-rot etiology paper; it contains nothing on TYMC, compliance failure rates, Chaetomium/Penicillium/Trichoderma amplification, or Aspergillus. The 30–50% figure is UNSOURCED. |
| R07-C016 | Annualized advantage via 7–14 d faster veg and 4.8–5.4 vs 3.5–4.2 cycles/yr | “Synthesized from” Schober 2023, Velechovský 2024, Malík 2025 | NO — UNSOURCED | None of the three contains cycles-per-year figures; Velechovský is single-system; Malík’s abstract says substrate affects vegetative growth and yield but gives no turnover numbers; Schober unretrievable. |
3. S-number cross-check against knowledge-core/SOURCE_LIBRARY.md
| S-no. | Registered in SOURCE_LIBRARY | Gemini’s attribution | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| S-003 | Desaulniers Brousseau et al. 2024, ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 4(7):690–699 | Cited as “Desaulniers Brousseau et al. 2024a” (no S-tag) for ~75% GWP from potting media | Match (content and paper). |
| S-007 | PG&E/ETCC CR22PGE0101-1, 2022–24, ~70% water → condensate | “PG&E / ETCC (2024), CR22PGE0101-1 [S-007]” | Match. |
| S-096 | Ahmed B et al. 2023, Front. Plant Sci. 14:1219836 (microbial consortia; 5 cultivars; coir/perlite) | Applied to “Ahmed et al. 2023, Ind. Crops Prod. 203:117172” (growing-media trial) | MISATTRIBUTED. The Ind. Crops Prod. paper is by Schober et al. and is not in the library; the S-096 paper is a different Ahmed study. Gemini appears to have grafted the S-096 surname onto an unregistered DOI. |
| S-099 | Massuela et al. 2023, Front. Plant Sci. 14:1233232 | Not cited by Gemini | n/a |
| S-100 | Caplan, Dixon, Zheng 2017a, HortSci 52(9):1307–1312 | Same | Match. |
| S-101 | Caplan, Dixon, Zheng 2017b, HortSci 52(12):1796–1803 | Same | Match. |
| S-104 | Hershkowitz, Westmoreland, Bugbee 2025, Front. Plant Sci. 16:1433985 | Not cited | n/a |
| S-110 / S-113 | Vandecasteele et al. 2024 (peat reuse, strawberry); Jiménez et al. 2012 (peat reuse, Lilium) | Referenced only as “R08-C013–C015, S-110–S-113” in the Executive Summary | Range citation consistent with library subject (media reuse); no tuple given. |
| S-116 | McGehee CS, Raudales RE 2021, Front. Agron. 3:706138 (Pythium/Globisporangium/Fusarium from coconut coir and rockwool, Connecticut facility) | Applied to “Punja et al. 2021, Can. J. Plant Pathol.” | MISATTRIBUTED — editor pre-scan confirmed. Crossref/OpenAlex/Europe PMC all resolve S-116’s DOI to McGehee & Raudales. Gemini never cites McGehee & Raudales even though C009’s species list (G. irregulare, P. myriotylum, F. oxysporum from coir and rockwool) is their finding, not Punja’s. |
| S-134 | Nemati et al. 2021, Agronomy 11(7):1366 | Same | Match. |
| S-175 | Westmoreland & Bugbee 2022, Front. Plant Sci. 13:1015652 | Not cited | n/a |
| S-205 | Velechovský J, Malík M, Šenkyřík JB, Tlustoš P 2024, Front. Plant Sci. 15:1322824 | Same DOI; authors given as “Velechovský, Kyselka, Toufarová, Bjelková, Tlustoš” | DOI/S-no. match; author list fabricated (see identity #1). |
| S-208 | Llewellyn et al. 2023, Plants 12(3):422 | Not cited | n/a |
| S-209 | Stemeroff 2017/2018 M.Sc. thesis, Guelph | Not cited; “Stemeroff” appears only as an invented co-author on the nonexistent 2019 HortTechnology tuple (#12) | Flag: Stemeroff name reused on a fabricated tuple, as in R06 (Caplan 2017a author-list error). |
4. Editor-caught notes (body text and tables outside the 16 claims)
- Section I #1 / B1 (Velechovský): author list fabricated (Kyselka, Toufarová, Bjelková do not appear on the paper); title paraphrased. Body text says “+182% … compared to baseline controls” — the paper’s 182% is recirculation-vs-DTW. Body says P +93%, K +43%, Fe +940% — paper: +83%, +39%, +860%. B3 row says “0.5 m² per plant” — paper: 27.5 plants/m². Gemini never mentions that (a) the two fertigation systems were run as sequential cycles, (b) fertigation stopped after week 9 with DM water thereafter, (c) sampling continued to week 13. Root-zone temperature: not measured (air 25/22 °C) — Gemini’s “air-temp-only (unmeasured)” is accurate.
- Section I #2 / E1 (Punja 2021): volume/issue/pages fabricated (real: 44(1):66–81). E1 text credits Punja 2021 with recovering G. irregulare and F. oxysporum/F. solani “from both coconut coir and stone wool slabs” — the abstract lists neither G. irregulare nor Fusarium, and gives no substrate breakdown; that description belongs to S-116 (McGehee & Raudales), which is uncited.
- Section I #6 / A3 / B3 (“Ahmed et al. 2023”): authors are Schober, Präger, Hartung, Hensmann, Graeff-Hönninger. Every B3 detail (n = 5, 10 L pots, 70:30 blends, 4 wk veg + 8 wk flower, harvest at 70% brown pistils, “high-CBD cultivar”) is UNCHECKABLE — no abstract is exposed anywhere.
- Section I #7 / B3 / C008 (Yep & Zheng 2020b): “60 L DWC tubs, ‘Zenith’/‘G1’, 21.5 ± 0.8 °C, K + Fe supplementation closed the yield gap” — none of this is in the paper. Real design: 11 L peat pots (hydroponic vs aquaculture effluent) and 3 L pot + aquaponics DWC; cultivars ‘Nordle’ and ‘Sensi-Star’; hydroponic yielded 42–116% more. Gemini’s table-row conclusion (“solution nutrient supply mode, not fish effluent, determined yield”) is the opposite of a rootzone-equivalence finding.
- Section I #12 / A3 / H27 (Caplan, Stemeroff, Dixon & Zheng 2019, HortTechnology): nonexistent paper; DOI resolves to a Florida tomato anaerobic-soil-disinfestation economics paper. The H27 mechanism row for “accelerated vegetative growth velocity” leans on this tuple.
- A3 row (Yep, Gale & Zheng 2020a): Gemini says hydroponic solution “maintained higher stomatal conductance and growth under salinity than un-supplemented aquaponic.” Abstract: growth/physiology “in hydroponic – but not the aquaponic solution – became negatively affected at 40 mM”; cannabinoids fell linearly with NaCl in both. The direction is inverted.
- A3 / B3 / D (Tebdoie et al. 2025): Registry abstract: cultivar ‘Platinum Kush Breath Remix’; peat:perlite:vermiculite 3:1:1 (PM) “significantly enhanced plant height, stem diameter, number of nodes, and inflorescence yield”; the highest chlorophyll a and total chlorophyll were in CC1 = coir:perlite:vermiculite:vermicompost 3:1:1:1, comparable to PM in yield. Gemini states the opposite on chlorophyll (“peat … higher leaf chlorophyll”), describes the coir treatment as 3:1:1 without vermicompost, and calls the study vegetative-only (“6 weeks … no yield endpoint”). Gemini’s 118.4 vs 109.6 cm, 12 L air-flow pots and n = 5 could not be checked (PDF fonts unextractable). Gemini omitted the paper’s real DOI and title.
- B3 row (Knight et al. 2010): DOI wrong-object; “350–500 g/m² per cycle” is not in the abstract (abstract reports 687 g/plant mean, 881 g/plant best cycle, 18 plants over three 6-plant cycles). “Perlite/expanded clay”, “Flora series”, “SCROG” partly match the title (ScrOG) but the rest is unverified.
- Section I #5 / B3 (Caplan 2017b): “single coir formulation” — the trial used two substrates (U2-HP vs U2) with an 11% yield difference between them. The 5 rates were 57–283 mg N/L, not 57–284.
- B3 / C006 (Caplan 2017a): rates 117–585 mg N/L, not 57–389; substrate effect on growth/yield was nil, not substrate-dependent; trial went to floral harvest.
- H27 mechanism row “calcium deficiency in unbuffered coir”: cites Caplan 2017a — that paper’s abstract does not address coir CEC or Ca stripping; the coir-buffering mechanism is in Nemati (qualitative).
- E2 (DCC heavy metals): figures correct for inhalable products under 4 CCR §15723; Gemini should cite the section. §15724 is cannabinoid testing; §15728 is sample retention.
- F1 / F2 / F3 / H26 / M5 / M6: every quantitative figure (10–25% leach fraction; 150–250 mg/L NO₃-N; 45–125 g N/day; 0.30–0.50 kg rockwool/plant; 1.2–2.0 t per 4,000 plants; >90% landfill; 0.35–0.70 kg coir/plant; 250–400 L per kg flower; embodied-carbon table 0.15–1.85 kg CO₂e/kg) is unsourced. Gemini’s own Section J item 3 concedes no facility-level mass-balance exists.
- H25 table: all cell values (THCA %, g/m²/cycle, cycles/yr, g/m²/yr by system) are unsourced; “Velechovský confirms high THC accumulation in recirculation” is the only citation and supports none of the numeric ranges.
- Bare citations: “Vergara et al. 2016” (sensory table) and “Zheng (2021)” (H27) could not be resolved to any registry object; “Bernstein et al. 2019a” and “Shiponi & Bernstein 2021” are real but untupled.
- Executive summary: “R06-C015, S-205 … recirculating vs drain-to-waste produced equivalent floral biomass but significantly increased total THC yield” — consistent with S-205’s corpus note.
5. Summary
Counts
- Bibliographic tuples with DOI checked in both registries: 14 — PASS 9 (Punja 2018; Caplan 2017a; Caplan 2017b; Yep & Zheng 2020b [middle author omitted]; Nemati 2021; Malík & Tlustoš 2025; Balliu 2021; Saloner & Bernstein 2021; Yep, Gale & Zheng 2020a) · PARTIAL 3 (Velechovský 2024 — author-year misattribution/wording partial; Punja 2021 — fabricated volume/issue/pages; “Ahmed” 2023 — author-year misattribution, real authors Schober et al.) · FAIL 2 (Caplan/Stemeroff 2019 HortTechnology — fabricated tuple + wrong-object DOI; Knight 2010 — wrong-object DOI on a real paper). Nonexistent-DOI FAILs: 0.
- Non-DOI / bare / regulatory items: 9 — PASS 7 (Tebdoie 2025 URL; ETCC S-007 corpus; SWRCB WQ 2019-0001-DWQ; DCC §15723 limits; Desaulniers Brousseau = S-003; Bernstein 2019a bare; Shiponi & Bernstein 2021 bare) · UNRESOLVED 2 (Vergara 2016; Zheng 2021).
- S-number attributions: 9 tags used — 6 match (S-007, S-100, S-101, S-134, S-205 [DOI], S-110–S-113 range), 2 misattributed (S-096, S-116), 1 correct-DOI-wrong-authors (S-205).
- CLAIM support (16 candidate claims): YES 0 · PARTIAL 5 (C004, C005, C007, C009, C012) · NO 7 (C002, C006, C008, C010, C011, C015, C016; of these C010, C011, C015, C016 are UNSOURCED numbers) · UNCHECKABLE 4 (C001, C003 — paywalled and misattributed; C013, C014 — absence claims).
Identity failures (tuple → what actually resolved)
- Caplan, Stemeroff, Dixon & Zheng (2019) “Vegetative-stage substrate composition effects on cannabis”, HortTechnology 29(4):469–477, 10.21273/HORTTECH04332-19 → Shi et al. (2019) Economic Analysis of Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation for Open-field Fresh-market Tomato…, HortTechnology 29(6):777–787. No Caplan/Stemeroff HortTechnology paper exists in Crossref; nearest real: Caplan, Dixon & Zheng (2019) Acta Hortic. 1266:55–62.
- Knight et al. (2010), 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.015 → Krishan, Kanchan & DiMaggio (2010) limb-asymmetry/stature paper, FSI 200:181.e1–e5. Real Knight et al. 2010 is 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.022, FSI 202:36–44.
- (PARTIAL) Velechovský, Kyselka, Toufarová, Bjelková & Tlustoš → Velechovský, Malík, Šenkyřík & Tlustoš; title “…biomass yield and cannabinoid content … cultivation”.
- (PARTIAL) Punja, Scott & Lung 2021, CJPP 43(sup2):S116–S129 → CJPP 44(1):66–81.
- (PARTIAL) “Ahmed et al. 2023”, Ind. Crops Prod. 203:117172 → Schober, Präger, Hartung, Hensmann & Graeff-Hönninger 2023.
Claim-support failures (NO) with the correct finding where found
- C002 — neither Velechovský nor Yep 2020b measured flowering duration across systems.
- C006 — Caplan 2017a: no substrate difference in growth or yield; pooled optimum 389 mg N/L; rates 117–585 mg N/L.
- C008 — Yep 2020b: ‘Nordle’/‘Sensi-Star’ in 11 L peat pots (hydroponic vs aquaculture effluent) and 3 L pot + aquaponics DWC; hydroponic yielded 42–116% more inflorescence biomass; no K/Fe supplementation, no 60 L tubs, no 21.5 °C figure.
- C010 — 0.30–0.50 kg/plant and >90% landfill: not in Malík & Tlustoš; no source.
- C011 — 45–125 g N/day per 1,000 plants: no source; SWRCB order is regulatory, not a measurement.
- C015 — 30–50% TYMC failure: not in Punja 2021 (a Pythium etiology paper); no source.
- C016 — 4.8–5.4 vs 3.5–4.2 cycles/yr: not in any of the three “synthesized” sources.
Could not adjudicate (UNCHECKABLE)
- Schober et al. 2023 (C001, C003 and all A3/B3 row details): paywalled, no abstract exposed, no OA copy (Unpaywall).
- Caplan 2017b magnitudes “+110%”, “10.3 → 8.7% THCA”, 7.6 L pots, 9 weeks (C007): ASHS blocked; abstract confirms direction only.
- Tebdoie 2025 specifics (118.4 vs 109.6 cm, 12 L air-flow pots, n = 5, 6 weeks): PDF text not extractable; abstract contradicts Gemini on chlorophyll and on yield being measured.
- SWRCB Order WQ 2019-0001-DWQ content paraphrase (NPDES/POTW): order text not retrieved.
- ETCC CR22PGE0101-1 upper-bound figures (80%; 60–75% reduction): report not re-read live.
- C013, C014 absence claims.
Recommended disposition
- Can proceed to ledger after editorial rewrite (no Gemini round needed):
- C004 — rewrite with the paper’s actual comparators: ET vs CN +50.7% THC yield in DTW at week 11; recirculation ET vs DTW ET +182%; no conclusive system effect on final inflorescence mass; P/K/Fe +83/+39/+860%; 27.5 plants/m²; 3.45 L pots / 3 L expanded clay; 9 × 94 mL pulses; sequential cycles; fertigation to week 9 only; substrate temperature unmeasured. Cite S-205 with the registered author list.
- C005 — keep the mechanism (unbuffered coir Na/K-saturated; Ca/Mg stripping; buffering practice) on Nemati [S-134] + Malík; delete “40–100 cmol_c/kg” unless a source is supplied.
- C009 — re-anchor to S-116 (McGehee & Raudales 2021: G. irregulare, P. myriotylum, F. oxysporum from coir and rockwool, one Connecticut facility) plus Punja 2018 / Punja 2021 with their own species lists and the corrected 2021 tuple (44(1):66–81); drop “high frequency” unless quantified.
- C012 — ledger only as the R04-C018 / S-007 inheritance (~70% condensate recovery); strip 80% and the 60–75% reduction figure.
- Needs a Gemini correction round (source retrieval or re-sourcing):
- C001, C003 — obtain Schober et al. 2023 full text (or supply a different measured source); correct authors; supply the actual growth-rate/canopy-fill and cannabinoid results; “7–14 days” must be sourced or dropped.
- C007 — obtain Caplan 2017b full text for +110% and 10.3→8.7%; correct to two substrates, cultivar ‘Wappa’, rates 57–283 mg N/L.
- C002 — needs a source that actually measures days-to-floral-maturity across substrates/architectures; the current two do not.
- C013, C014 — editor decision on absence claims; Gemini’s search log (Section L) is the only basis.
- Unusable as written:
- C006 (contradicted by the cited abstract), C008 (fabricated study description; result inverted), C010, C011, C015, C016 (numbers with no source; C015’s cited paper is off-topic).
- Do-not-cite entries to add to the library: 10.21273/HORTTECH04332-19 as a Caplan paper (wrong object); 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.015 as Knight 2010 (wrong object; real DOI …04.022); the “Kyselka/Toufarová/Bjelková” author string for S-205; “Ahmed et al.” as authors of 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117172.
Method notes
Crossref REST and OpenAlex for all 14 DOIs (both agreed on every object). Crossref query.bibliographic for Caplan 2019, Knight 2010, Shiponi 2021, Vergara 2016, Bernstein 2019, Tebdoie 2025, McGehee 2021, Zheng 2021. Europe PMC fullTextXML PMC10847352 (Velechovský) read in full; Europe PMC/Semantic Scholar abstracts for Saloner 2021, Yep 2020b, Punja 2021, Knight 2010, McGehee 2021; Crossref abstracts for Caplan 2017a/b, Tebdoie 2025, Balliu, Nemati, Malík; OpenAlex abstracts for Punja 2018, Yep 2020a. Nemati and Malík PDFs fetched from mdpi-res.com and text-extracted (crude stream inflate; words run together but fully searchable). Tebdoie PDF fetched but font encoding not extractable; no PDF renderer available on this host. SOURCE_LIBRARY.md entries S-003, S-007, S-096, S-099, S-100, S-101, S-104, S-110, S-113, S-116, S-134, S-175, S-205, S-208, S-209 read directly. Blocked: journals.ashs.org (returns “hort” stub), sciencedirect.com (redirect only), mdpi.com HTML/PDF (empty body), etcc-ca.com guessed URL (404).