# Peer review / independent re-run invitation

**Archive ID:** PR-000  
**Page:** https://infinisynapse.com/en/blog/ai-data-visualization-tools  
**Fixture protocol:** https://infinisynapse.com/en/blog/ai-data-visualization-tools#the-fixture-anyone-can-rebuild  
**Submit to:** zhuhl@infinisynapse.com  
**Public archive (HTML):** https://infinisynapse.com/en/editorial-standards#peer-review-archive  
**Page ledger:** https://infinisynapse.com/blog-media/ai-data-visualization-tools/downloads/peer-review-archive.md  
**Published:** 2026-07-28 · **Updated:** 2026-07-29  

## Why this invitation exists

InfiniSynapse publishes desk scores for tools including our own product. Vendor self-scoring is weak evidence. We therefore keep an open call for **external peers** to re-run the fixture, critique the rubric, or file a commissioned audit summary. Until PR-002+ are filled, treat on-page scores as labelled desk logs — not independently verified benchmarks.

## What we accept

1. **Independent re-run** — filled [visualization-tool-scorecard.csv](https://infinisynapse.com/blog-media/ai-data-visualization-tools/downloads/visualization-tool-scorecard.csv) against the published [seed rules](https://infinisynapse.com/blog-media/ai-data-visualization-tools/downloads/visualization-fixture-seed-rules.csv) and [24-prompt log](https://infinisynapse.com/blog-media/ai-data-visualization-tools/downloads/visualization-fixture-prompts.csv) (CC BY 4.0).  
2. **Methodology peer review** — written critique of rubric discrimination, grain traps, or scoring rules (with or without new scores). Prefer a public URL or PDF we can permalink.  
3. **Commissioned audit summary** — if a third party audits this fixture, send the public summary + permalink; we archive it with date and attribution.

## Suggested review questions for external peers

- Do rubric rows still discriminate after aesthetics are removed?  
- Are InfiniSynapse Mediums where incumbents win still honest?  
- Can you reproduce chart-generator fresh-session identical logic at **6/24** (or a materially different rate) on the published prompts?  
- Do security claims map cleanly to OWASP LLM Top 10 / NIST AI RMF?

## Related on-file record (not a substitute for external review)

| ID | Document |
|----|----------|
| PR-001 | [Named cofounder methodology attestation (William Zhu, 2026-07-29)](https://infinisynapse.com/blog-media/ai-data-visualization-tools/downloads/methodology-attestation-william-zhu-20260729.md) — internal checklist; **not** an independent audit |

## Archive policy

Accepted submissions are logged with submitter attribution, date, agree/contradict flag, and permalink on [peer-review-archive.md](https://infinisynapse.com/blog-media/ai-data-visualization-tools/downloads/peer-review-archive.md) and the [editorial standards archive](https://infinisynapse.com/en/editorial-standards#peer-review-archive). We do not delete a logged contradiction when it disagrees with InfiniSynapse scores.

## Current archive status (this page)

| Type | Status |
|------|--------|
| Open external invitation (PR-000) | **Published** |
| Named internal methodology attestation (PR-001) | **On file** (William Zhu) |
| Commissioned independent audit (PR-004) | None on file — invitation open |
| Third-party re-run (PR-002) | None on file — invitation open |
| External methodology peer review letter (PR-003) | None on file — invitation open |

This file is itself part of the public invitation record (CC BY 4.0).