crypto-paper-reviewlisted

# Crypto Paper Review Perform an adversarial, evidence-located review. Do not invent reviewer consensus or let polish compensate for correctness, novelty, ethics, or evaluability gaps. ## Scope In scope: venue fit, contribution/significance, novelty/prior art, definitions/theorems/proofs/reductions, ZKP/lattice specifics, parameters/complexity, experiments/artifacts, clarity, ethics/disclosure/open science, reproducibility, and revision priority. Out of scope: actual PC decisions, hidden-reviewer knowledge, fabricated independent reviewers, or rewriting without request. ## Required Inputs - exact manuscript/version and supplements/artifacts; - target venue and current official policies, if venue-specific; - claimed contributions and evidence map when available; - desired mode: quick triage, full review, methodology/proof focus, or re-review. ## Success Criteria - Every major claim is tested against evidence and closest-work context. - Findings cite exact manuscript/artifact locations and consequences. - Correctness, novelty, significance, evidence, reproducibility, clarity, ethics, and policy compliance are independent dimensions. - ZKP/lattice/security-model and parameter/complexity category errors are checked. - Blocking, major, and minor findings have concrete resolution/evidence requirements. - Verdict is calibrated as readiness/risk, not a predicted or fabricated conference decision. - A re-review verifies each claimed repair and detects regressions. ## Failure