GLP-1 eating disorder risk doubles with prior mental health history creating identifiable high-risk population

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — All files have valid frontmatter for their type: the two new claims include type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields as required, and the two enrichments to existing claims add properly formatted evidence sections without altering frontmatter. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The ISPOR study evidence appears in three places (the new "risk doubles" claim, enrichment to the pharmacovigilance signal claim, and enrichment to the screening gap claim), but each injection serves a distinct purpose: establishing the doubling effect, confirming signal detectability in large-scale data, and demonstrating the identified risk population exists despite infrastructure gaps. 3. **Confidence** — Both new claims are marked "experimental" which is appropriate: the "risk doubles" claim is based on observational data without a non-GLP-1 control group (acknowledged limitation in the claim body), and the "screening lacks infrastructure" claim documents regulatory/structural gaps rather than clinical efficacy data. 4. **Wiki links** — Multiple wiki links reference claims like `[[glp1-discontinuation-predicted-by-psychiatric-comorbidity-creating-access-adherence-trap]]` and `[[SDOH interventions show strong ROI but adoption stalls because Z-code documentation remains below 3 percent...]]` that may not exist in the current branch, but as instructed, broken links are expected when linked claims exist in other PRs. 5. **Source quality** — The Timmerman Report (November 2025) and ISPOR study via Timmerman Report are credible sources for regulatory gap analysis and observational pharmacovigilance data, though the claim body notes the ISPOR study's limitation of lacking a non-GLP-1 control group. 6. **Specificity** — Both claims are falsifiable: the "risk doubles" claim makes a quantitative assertion (>2x risk, 1.275% cumulative incidence) that could be contradicted by data showing no differential risk, and the "screening lacks infrastructure" claim makes four specific structural assertions (no protocol, no database, no follow-up, no label warnings) that could be disproven by evidence of existing infrastructure. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->