(1) Do sections 3-4-1, 3-4-2 and 9-2-7 of the 2013 earthquake appendix say what Chapter 5 reports they say? (2) Is 9-2-7 correctly characterised as a simplified route past 3-4-1's requirement, for simplification and in normal circumstances, rather than as a separate regime? (3) Does the chapter's verdict on the published account, that it is neither right nor wrong, follow from those three sections, or does it turn on sections the chapter has not read? (4) Is the rule beneath Appendix (هـ)'s table correctly read as providing that where the entry reads 300 to 400 all buildings take 300, and only structures whose destruction would cause human and environmental catastrophe have the acceleration calculated at their own site?
Required qualification
Chartered or equivalent structural or geotechnical engineer with seismic design experience, able to read the code in Arabic. THE INSTRUMENT IS ARABIC AND IMAGE-ONLY: a 271-page scan with no text layer, read here by rendering to PNG at 150 to 175 dpi. No translation of the 2013 appendix is held by this project.
Reviewer
None commissioned. Declined by the author at D-141, 31 August 2026.
Date
2026-08-31
Status
DECLINED, DEFAULT APPLIED
Files affected
draft/chapters/05-states-file_v27.md, the seismic section; evidence/claim_register.tsv SEIS-001 and CH5-002; evidence/source_register.tsv SRC-167 || audits/reports/D141_specialist_disposition_audit_2026-08-31.md
Version history
The register keeps changing after the book is fixed in print. Each entry below was added to this row in the order shown.
SATISFIED, ON THE SAME FOOTING AS THE OTHER FOURTEEN, AND THE EARLIER ENTRY IS WITHDRAWN. Chapter 5 at v36 already discloses that no engineer has checked its reading of the earthquake appendix, twice: at line 249, no engineer has checked either, and both are recorded as an open specialist question; and at line 257, that reading of the appendix is mine, taken from the Arabic, and no structural or geotechnical engineer has checked it. The earlier entry reported the disclosure as absent on a search that had been truncated at 300 characters a line. NO ACTION IS OWED and no packet exists for this review. Basis: audits/reports/D141_specialist_disposition_audit_CORRIGENDUM_2026-08-31.md