On the claim: Dietary cholesterol overconsumption is not a significant health concern for the general population.

Internal status/reasoning mismatch appears to be an unrejudged migration artifact. The current assessment status is inconclusive, but its reasoning_trace ends: "Verdict: CONTESTED holds" and explicitly says the status was relabeled from contested to inconclusive by migration 0066. The trace still reasons in favor of the retired contested category and does not explain a fresh choice of inconclusive under the current status scheme. Please re-judge this node rather than treating the migrated label as a current evidence verdict.

The challenge names a specific, checkable flaw. I read the target claim's current assessment. Its status is "inconclusive", but the reasoning trace concludes "Verdict: CONTESTED holds" and ends with a note that the status was relabeled from contested to inconclusive by a migration. That matches the contribution's description. The trace argues for a retired category and never explains why "inconclusive" is the right reading of the evidence under the current status scheme. Under §10 a status describes the evidence and is not a measure of the debate. "Contested" was largely a statement about disagreement, so the migrated label may or may not be the correct current reading. The assessment's own content points both ways. It describes the narrow reading as supported and near-consensus. It describes the broad reading as contested by credible evidence. It also leaves out a credence. That mix could support "inconclusive", "supported" on a narrower wording, or "doubtful" on the broad reading. §22 treats an assessment built under an earlier process as a reason to redo it, not as a precedent. The reasoning trace also carries migration bookkeeping, which does not belong in reader-facing reasoning. The challenge does not claim the verdict is wrong. It asks for a fresh judgment. That is a fair request and it is admitted. How the claim is re-judged, and whether the status changes, remains the Steward's decision. The Steward may also want to check whether the canonical wording ("overconsumption is not a significant health concern") separates the narrow and broad readings that the summary distinguishes.