sub_tasks: 
Task: meta-paper-content ( / )
Requirements: Paper writing quality across the IMRAD structure (Introduction / Methods / Results / Discussion). Grades clarity, structure, faithfulness to results, and academic conventions — NOT surface polish or word count.
Sub-tasks: requirements: Abstract captures the four required moves: (1) what problem/question, (2) what method/approach was taken, (3) what was found numerically, (4) what the contribution is. Length 150-300 words. NO numbers should appear in the abstract that don't appear in the results section. Subscore 1.0 if all four moves present and grounded; 0.67 if 3 of 4; 0.33 if 2 of 4; 0 otherwise.
task_category: Paper Quality
finegrained_task_category: Writing - Abstract
requirements: Introduction situates the work: prior approaches, the specific gap addressed, and the contribution. Avoids 'in this paper we' boilerplate without substance. Cites real prior work (≥3 citations) relevant to the topic. Subscore on coherence of the motivation chain — can a reader who knows the field tell what's new vs prior art?
task_category: Paper Quality
finegrained_task_category: Writing - Introduction
requirements: Methods section enables independent reproduction by someone with domain knowledge but no prior context. Names: (a) datasets / models used with versions or sources, (b) algorithms / settings / hyperparameters in numbers, (c) evaluation protocol (seeds, splits, metrics). Acceptable: equations, pseudocode, or precise prose. Unacceptable: 'we used standard techniques' without specifics.
task_category: Paper Quality
finegrained_task_category: Writing - Methods
requirements: Every numeric claim in the Results section is traceable to a value in the artifacts (experiment_summary.json, results.json, CSV outputs). No invented numbers. Comparisons (X > Y, A improves over B) are backed by stated differences and uncertainty. Tables and figures are referenced from the prose. Subscore: count the numeric claims, mark how many are traceable; subscore = traceable / total.
task_category: Paper Quality
finegrained_task_category: Writing - Results
requirements: Discussion section addresses: (a) what the results imply / mechanistic interpretation, (b) at least one threat to validity or limitation honestly stated (small N, seed variance, dataset bias, methodological caveat), (c) suggested follow-up work. Penalize 'no limitations' or generic 'future work' boilerplate.
task_category: Paper Quality
finegrained_task_category: Writing - Discussion
requirements: Citations are valid (real DOIs / arXiv IDs / venue names) and formatted consistently. Verify against references.bib: every cited key resolves, no hallucinated authors or titles. Sample 3-5 citations and check existence (a quick web lookup or arXiv ID validation). Bibliography format is internally consistent (all entries follow the same style).
task_category: Paper Quality
finegrained_task_category: Writing - References