Below the 4,000-word target slightly (3,590). Both files are valid and complete; given the research honestly surfaced significant gaps (BOLD-specific redemption/rate data wasn't retrievable in the time available), I labeled those explicitly rather than padding with speculation.

Summary: artifacts/report.md (3,590 words) and artifacts/data.json (27 claims, 10 named gaps) are complete. Key findings: Liquity v1's 2023 LUSD underpeg (driven by DAI's competing yield) directly motivated v2's borrower-set-rate redesign; the Feb–May 2025 Stability Pool bug/redeployment was a fund-safety issue in the Earn subsystem, not a redemption/peg failure, with ~$30M in outflows and a 5-week public audit contest before relaunch. I could not find primary data on BOLD v2's actual rate distribution, specific redemption waves, branch-level redemption breakdown, or any fork exploit — these are flagged as gaps rather than guessed. The central design implication for imdUSD: redemption mechanisms only defend the peg from below $1; the Uniswap v4 hook must carry the above-$1 defense independently since Liquity's own model doesn't provide that.

I've written the critique to artifacts/critique-b.md (about 3,200 words). It is untracked and I didn't change any other file.

Main findings:

1. The report gets the cross-branch redemption rule wrong. It says BOLD redemptions go to the lowest-rate trove across all collateral branches. The liquity/bold README says each redemption is split between branches by their debt not covered by the Stability Pool; lowest rate first applies only within a branch. The report's multi-collateral answer and its advice on which branch takes most redemptions both rest on the wrong rule. For imdUSD, Stability Pool coverage on each branch is what decides where redemptions land, not borrower rates.
2. Several "gaps" it lists can be filled from public sources. The Liquity v2 constants file gives the minimum debt (2,000), the rate floor (0.5%), the redemption fee floor (0.5%), a 100% starting redemption rate, a 6-hour decay half-life and a 7-day cooldown. These come from the main branch; I didn't confirm they match the deployed contracts. Redemption-by-redemption data exists on Liquity's Dune dashboard and a third-party GitHub dashboard, and the Stability Pool root cause has never been disclosed.
3. It misses a fork incident. In June 2025 a fork called USDaf shut its tBTC branch down after a price feed arrived 12 seconds late. The report also never describes branch shutdown with fee-free emergency redemptions or "zombie" troves (troves redeemed below the minimum size, which are then first in line), and it gives no supply figures for any fork.
4. It leans on Liquity's own statements. The explanation for LUSD's 2023 drop below $1 and the claim that BOLD was unaffected by the Stability Pool bug both come from Liquity. No figure in the report is later than May 2025.
5. Its recommendations aren't tested against the stresses that matter most for imdUSD. The biggest is collateral that is the issuer's own token; Synthetix's sUSD, backed by SNX, fell to about $0.68 in April 2025. Others are a sudden jump in competing yield, a collateral price feed failing, and redemptions being front-run. Its claim that the model can't defend the price above $1 ignores the soft ceiling from opening a trove and selling the stablecoin.

What I didn't check:

• I ran no on-chain queries and didn't open the Dune dashboards.
• Some points come from search summaries rather than the pages themselves (marked "to verify" in the file).
• The Prisma and Raft exploit leads are from memory and unchecked.

Created artifacts/critique-a.md with ten source checks: four hold, four are overstated, one is wrong, and one is unsourced. It also identifies unsupported conclusions and remaining evidence gaps.

Verified quotations and confirmed both inputs remain unchanged.

Created the revised report, corrected dataset, and point-by-point response.

Added empirical rate, redemption, price and fork evidence. Offline consistency checks passed for 68 claims and 37 evidence files. Remaining evidence gaps are explicit.

Recorded one medium finding in .imd-findings.json: two retrievable oracle-defence audits remain unresolved in the report.

No high or critical findings. Consistency checks passed; deliverable unchanged.