**Overall Verdict:** Strong Accept — The submission is complete, internally coherent, independently verifiable, professionally representative, and reachable end to end.

**Completeness Check:**
- Instruction: Complete — Clearly defines dose reconstruction, interpolation, six uncertainty scenarios, delivery constraints, outputs, runtime, and all-or-nothing scoring.
- Inputs: Complete — All stated files, schemas, row counts, units, identities, and analytic geometries are present and consistent; the only four blank source rates occur in the explicitly discarded away-zero column.
- Toolchain: Complete — Specifies compatible open-source Python, NumPy, pandas, and SciPy versions with a suitable Linux container definition and single-machine resource profile.
- Reference output: Complete — Includes a valid 130-row quantized dwell plan, methodology report, hidden evaluation points, passing reference score, evaluator, tests, and provenance materials.
- Rubric: Complete — Defines twelve dosimetric and six delivery gates, strict thresholds, structural validation, deterministic hidden-scenario evaluation, binary scoring, and diagnostic failure reporting.

**File and Task Reachability:**
The attachment set is `reachable`, and the end-to-end task is `reachable`. I inspected `tg43-hdr-input-materials.zip`, including its instruction, README, task card, environment definition, source model, dwell positions, visible structure points, prescription, and uncertainty model; `tg43-hdr-reference-evaluation.zip`, including the oracle outputs, hidden points, score, evaluator, generator, calibration and solution materials, tests, documentation, and source workbook; and `terra_planning_only_score.json`. All archive members were inspected, with no unreviewed content, encryption, unsafe paths, links, devices, macros, or excessive expansion. The workbook is a valid macro-free XLSX, its supplied checksum is internally consistent, and all 464 exported source rows match its AlongAway worksheet exactly.

The review host lacked the declared Python runtime, so the submitted Python scripts and tests were not executed. This is a reviewer-tooling limitation, not a submission defect. An independent read-only reconstruction reproduced all six scenario results and aggregate reference metrics to numerical precision and confirmed that all 18 gates pass. The completion path is clear: reconstruct dwell-to-point dose from the supplied grid, sample or otherwise robustly model the declared analytic scenarios, optimize and quantize 130 dwell times, produce the CSV and report, and undergo evaluator-owned identity, delivery, and hidden dosimetry checks. The claimed public provenance could not be externally searched within the evidence boundary, but the workbook’s internal labeling, cited source description, supplied checksum, and exact extraction consistency provide strong internal support. License keys, accounts, tokens, and other credentials are not required from the contributor. Confidential, proprietary, or internal material may be evaluated as submitted evidence without requiring additional disclosure.

**Special Screening:**
None

**Recommended Changes:**
The revision successfully removes the prior defect-repair branch and presents a focused robust inverse-planning task with strong evaluator separation and independently confirmed reference behavior. No changes are required.