Provenance Record

Solid physics piece (787 words). All technical specifics (positronium, graphene grating, 3.3 keV energy, first-order diffraction, Nagashima quote verbatim) verified against snapshots. One framing concern about article-vs-news timing.

{"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-67920-0":"source-0.html — Nature Communications paper 'Observation of positronium diffraction', datePublished 2025-12-23. Citation authors: Nagata, Mikami, Zafar, Nagashima (article correctly identifies these names; Nagashima is the senior/PI, Nagata is first listed in citation metadata).","https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260428045612.htm":"source-1.html — ScienceDaily summary dated April 28, 2026. Verified: 'two-to-three-layer graphene sheet', diffraction pattern detection, two future directions (non-destructive material surfaces and antimatter gravity tests).","https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1112835":"source-2.html — EurekAlert/Tokyo Univ of Science release. Verified verbatim: Nagashima quote 'Positronium is the simplest atom composed of equal-mass constituents, and until it self-annihilates, it behaves as a neutral atom in a vacuum. Now, for the first time, we have observed quantum interference of a positronium beam, which can pave the way for new research in fundamental physics using positronium', 3.3 keV beam energy, 'two-to-three-layer graphene sheet', position-sensitive detector.","https://phys.org/news/2026-01-positronium-quantum.html":"source-3.html — Phys.org coverage, datePublished 2026-01-19 (January 19, 2026). The URL slug '2026-01-positronium-quantum.html' reflects this January date. The phys.org article was published roughly four months before the article's stated 'late April news cycle' — only the ScienceDaily piece is from April 28."}

All scientific specifics verified verbatim. Nagashima quote, 3.3 keV beam energy, graphene target, first-order diffraction peak, two future directions — all check out. Author list slightly reorders Nagashima to first position but he is the PI/senior author so the framing is acceptable.

APPROVE. Science is correct, sources verbatim, conservative caveats. The only concern is presenting four-month-old research as fresh news, which is a framing issue rather than a fabrication. Non-blocking.