After puberty, boys outrun, outjump and outswim girls by roughly 10-30%.

1. Pass Title matches the evidence

   The seoTitle 'Yes, after puberty' and the claim match the evidence items, which show male advantages in running, jumping and swimming after puberty, with the 7-28% ranges in the answer consistent with the Olympic and Washington evidence.

2. Pass No obvious contradictions

   The finding (True) agrees with the answer and conclusion, and the repeated figures (149 of 150 finals, 136 of 142, 19-37 performances, 9.4-15.3% running margins) agree across the conclusion, key points, evidence and objections.

3. Pass Plausible justification

   The conclusion explains the High rating through three lines of evidence (direct event comparisons, growth-timing data, and physiology) and states the limits, which a reader would accept from the evidence presented.

4. Pass Sources are relevant

   Sources such as WIAA results, World Athletics, USA Swimming standards, peer-reviewed physiology and growth studies, CDC surveys and the ACSM statement are on topic for the claims they support.

5. Pass Common questions answered

   There are nine objections, each with a response that addresses its question, including the tennis, soccer, doping and reaction-time objections.

Coverage: Judged the article text only, per the auditor's prompt; sources were not opened.

1. Concern (minor) Rates the real claim

   Name rifle shooting in the conclusion as an exception, as evidence:female-advantages reports no sex difference there.

   R1 Pass: the claim is rated as worded, and the context separates it from the transgender-eligibility debate it circulates in. R2 Pass: the conclusion keeps to high-school and adult sport, labels tennis and team sports 'a strong inference ... rather than a measurement', and disclaims any policy conclusion. R3: inventory (b) has these exceptions inside the claim's scope: the 2022 3A pole-vault tie, flexibility, fatigue resistance, marathon pacing, long cold-water swims, and 'At the Tokyo 2021 Olympics there was no sex difference in rifle shooting' (evidence:female-advantages). The conclusion names all but rifle shooting; its list ('girls are more flexible, women's muscles resist fatigue better ... pace marathons more evenly, and in very long cold-water swims...') covers physical traits, not a precision sport, so no category plainly covers it. Fixes: 1. R3, Minor. Add rifle shooting to the conclusion's list of exceptions, for example 'and at the Tokyo 2021 Olympics there was no sex difference in rifle shooting.' Done when: the answer or conclusion names rifle shooting, or a category that plainly includes it such as precision sports, as an exception.

   About conclusion, evidence:female-advantages The finding

2. Concern (minor) Confidence matches the evidence

   Change the title's 'roughly 10-30%' to per-event ranges the evidence reports, such as about 10-15% in running, 7-12% in swimming and 18-30% in jumping.

   C1: the title says boys 'outrun, outjump and outswim girls by roughly 10-30%', a range applied to three categories. It must hold for each. Jumping holds (Paris 18.0-27.6%, national records 19.1-30.1%). Swimming does not: evidence:olympic-results reports 6.8% to 12.4% and evidence:age-emergence 12.1% at 18, so swimming is about 7-12%, not 10-30%. Running does not reach 30%: Paris 9.4-15.3%, national records 9.8-16.4%. The answer ('about 7-15% in running and swimming, 18-28% in jumping') and the conclusion's event ranges are within the evidence; only the title is out. The mismatch overstates the swimming and running ranges but not by half or more of the size, and not in direction, so Minor. C2 Pass: High rests on several independent lines using different methods (competition results, longitudinal youth data, population surveys and imaging, pooled fitness tests) with limitations stated. C3 Pass. Fixes: 1. C1, Minor. Retitle with ranges that hold for each category, for example 'After puberty, boys outrun girls by about 10-15%, outswim them by 7-12% and outjump them by 18-30%.' Done when: every number or range in the title falls within the figures the evidence reports for each event type it names.

   About conclusion, evidence:olympic-results, evidence:us-hs-records, evidence:age-emergence The finding

3. Concern (minor) Strongest objections answered

   2 edits: note the 19-37 Olympic count rests mostly on one 800m final run below record pace; note doping-era records caveat in the 1983-plateau answer.

   O2 Pass: the standard objections that could change the label are answered with evidence: alternative cause (training and opportunity: pre-puberty parity, population physiology), unrepresentative sample (shallow girls' fields: national records; dropout: Eurofit and adult Olympians), comparison group (champions vs typical: 8th-place and Eurofit), and doping. Reverse causation and chance do not apply. O1 finds two internal tensions, neither of which the rating depends on: (1) The conclusion says 19 to 37 boys' performances beat a Paris 2024 women's winning mark, 'a comparison that shallow girls' fields cannot explain, because those marks were set in the deepest women's fields in the world.' evidence:wa-state-meet says these were 'most of them in the 800m', and limitation:olympic-results says 'distance races in particular are often run slower than record pace.' The conclusion does not acknowledge that the count rests mainly on a comparator its own caveat calls possibly slow. (2) Objection 1's response relies on 'the gap in world records stopped shrinking in 1983 and has held at about 10%', from evidence:stable-gap, but limitation:stable-gap says 'its record data include doping-era marks', and evidence:olympic-results says doping-era women's records make 'the gap in records look smaller than it is.' The response does not acknowledge this where it uses the plateau. Fixes: 1. O1, Minor. In the conclusion, note that most of the 19-37 performances are in the 800m, where the Olympic final was a single race that may have been slower than record pace; or state the count against a comparator not run tactically. Done when: the conclusion's statement of the count acknowledges the limitation:olympic-results caveat or no longer depends on it. 2. O1, Minor. In objection 1's response, acknowledge that the 1983-2007 record series includes doping-era women's marks, and say why the plateau still counts against the opportunity explanation (for example, that it also uses top-10 performances), or rest the response on its other two points. Done when: the response either acknowledges the doping-era caveat where it cites the plateau or no longer relies on the plateau.

   About conclusion, evidence:wa-state-meet, limitation:olympic-results, evidence:stable-gap, limitation:stable-gap, evidence:olympic-results The finding

4. Pass Rating follows from the evidence

   V1 label derived from inventories (b) and (c) alone: True. Every timed and measured comparison favors males (149 of 150 Washington finals, the other a tie; national records 9.8-30.1%; Paris 2024 6.8-27.6%), the gap emerges with puberty (USA Swimming under 2% at 10-11 to 12.1% at 18), and population physiology shows the mechanism. The exceptions (rifle shooting, long cold-water swims, flexibility, fatigue resistance, pacing) are narrow; Mostly true would also be defensible because a notable exception exists, so True is the same or an adjacent defensible label. V2 Pass: the article's finding 'True' and answer agree with this.

5. Pass Evidence is independent

   I1 Pass. The conclusion presents 'three independent kinds of evidence': direct competition comparisons (WIAA meet PDFs, a national records compilation, Paris 2024 official results), growth data (Norwegian youth rankings, U.S. age-group swimming study, USA Swimming standards), and physiology (NHANES surveys, an MRI study, grip cohorts, UK Biobank, the FRIEND registry, Eurofit). The FactHub dataset is cited across kinds, but it compiles these separate underlying sources rather than being one measurement. thibault-2010 appears in evidence:olympic-results only for the doping-distortion remark, not as support for the competition margins. No two lines rest on the same underlying dataset or study.

Coverage: Examined the full article payload: title, claim, finding, answer, confidence, summary, context, key points, conclusion, all 8 evidence items with limitations, 9 objections with responses, 9 method steps, the editorial note, and source names and titles. Built inventories (a)-(d), derived the label before reading the finding, applied every rule, then ran the final sweep against the article as it would read after the listed edits. Source snapshots were not read, per the division of labor.