diff --git a/review/checklist.md b/review/checklist.md
index 16aa111bb..27d7ba2e4 100644
--- a/review/checklist.md
+++ b/review/checklist.md
@@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ Review the `git diff origin/main` output for the issues listed below. Be specifi
 **Two-pass review:**
 - **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** Run SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Shell Injection, and Enum Completeness first. Highest severity.
 - **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Run remaining categories below. Lower severity but still actioned.
-- **Specialist categories (handled by parallel subagents, NOT this checklist):** Test Gaps, Dead Code, Magic Numbers, Conditional Side Effects, Performance & Bundle Impact, Crypto & Entropy. See `review/specialists/` for these.
+- **Specialist categories (handled by parallel subagents, NOT this checklist):** Test Gaps, Dead Code, Magic Numbers, Conditional Side Effects, Performance & Bundle Impact, Crypto & Entropy, Simplification (unrequested structure). See `review/specialists/` for these.
+
+Completeness Gaps and Simplification are orthogonal, not contradictory: Completeness pushes coverage UP (tests, edge cases, error paths), Simplification pushes unrequested structure DOWN (one-implementation abstractions, hand-rolled stdlib, dead flexibility). The same diff can legitimately receive both.
 
 All findings get action via Fix-First Review: obvious mechanical fixes are applied automatically,
 genuinely ambiguous issues are batched into a single user question.
@@ -129,8 +131,8 @@ CRITICAL (highest severity):      INFORMATIONAL (main agent):      SPECIALIST (p
 ├─ Shell Injection                ├─ LLM Prompt Issues             ├─ Performance specialist
 └─ Enum & Value Completeness      ├─ Completeness Gaps             ├─ Data Migration specialist
                                    ├─ Time Window Safety            ├─ API Contract specialist
-                                   ├─ Type Coercion at Boundaries   └─ Red Team (conditional)
-                                   ├─ View/Frontend
+                                   ├─ Type Coercion at Boundaries   ├─ Simplification (advisory)
+                                   ├─ View/Frontend                 └─ Red Team (conditional)
                                    └─ Distribution & CI/CD Pipeline
 
 All findings are actioned via Fix-First Review. Severity determines
diff --git a/review/sections/review-army.md b/review/sections/review-army.md
index bfcd5a8ba..05aea20cd 100644
--- a/review/sections/review-army.md
+++ b/review/sections/review-army.md
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ Based on the scope signals above, select which specialists to dispatch.
 5. **Data Migration** — if SCOPE_MIGRATIONS=true. Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/data-migration.md`
 6. **API Contract** — if SCOPE_API=true. Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/api-contract.md`
 7. **Design** — if SCOPE_FRONTEND=true. Use the existing design review checklist at `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/design-checklist.md`
+8. **Simplification** — if DIFF_LINES > 100. Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/simplification.md`. Advisory-only lens: hunts unrequested structure (hand-rolled stdlib, one-implementation abstractions, dependencies duplicating platform features), never coverage.
 
 ### Adaptive gating
 
@@ -60,7 +61,7 @@ For each conditional specialist that passed scope gating, check the `gstack-spec
 - If tagged `[GATE_CANDIDATE]` (0 findings in 10+ dispatches): skip it. Print: "[specialist] auto-gated (0 findings in N reviews)."
 - If tagged `[NEVER_GATE]`: always dispatch regardless of hit rate. Security and data-migration are insurance policy specialists — they should run even when silent.
 
-**Force flags:** If the user's prompt includes `--security`, `--performance`, `--testing`, `--maintainability`, `--data-migration`, `--api-contract`, `--design`, or `--all-specialists`, force-include that specialist regardless of gating.
+**Force flags:** If the user's prompt includes `--security`, `--performance`, `--testing`, `--maintainability`, `--data-migration`, `--api-contract`, `--design`, `--simplification`, or `--all-specialists`, force-include that specialist regardless of gating.
 
 Note which specialists were selected, gated, and skipped. Print the selection:
 "Dispatching N specialists: [names]. Skipped: [names] (scope not detected). Gated: [names] (0 findings in N+ reviews)."
@@ -145,8 +146,14 @@ Group findings by fingerprint. For findings sharing the same fingerprint:
 - Confidence 3-4: move to appendix (suppress from main findings)
 - Confidence 1-2: suppress entirely
 
+**Advisory carve-out (simplification specialist):**
+Findings with `"advisory": true` are excluded from BOTH the quality_score
+summation and the findings-count header below — they are structure suggestions,
+not defects, and must not make "5 findings … 10/10" look contradictory. In
+Fix-First they are ASK-only: NEVER auto-applied, even when mechanical.
+
 **Compute PR Quality Score:**
-After merging, compute the quality score:
+After merging, compute the quality score over NON-advisory findings only:
 `quality_score = max(0, 10 - (critical_count * 2 + informational_count * 0.5))`
 Cap at 10. Log this in the review result at the end.
 
@@ -156,7 +163,8 @@ Present the merged findings in the same format as the current review:
 ```
 SPECIALIST REVIEW: N findings (X critical, Y informational) from Z specialists
 
-[For each finding, in order: CRITICAL first, then INFORMATIONAL, sorted by confidence descending]
+[For each finding, in order: CRITICAL first, then INFORMATIONAL, sorted by confidence descending;
+ advisory findings last, each rendered with an [ADVISORY] label in place of the severity]
 [SEVERITY] (confidence: N/10, specialist: name) path:line — summary
   Fix: recommended fix
   [If MULTI-SPECIALIST CONFIRMED: show confirmation note]
@@ -164,12 +172,20 @@ SPECIALIST REVIEW: N findings (X critical, Y informational) from Z specialists
 PR Quality Score: X/10
 ```
 
+**Simplification footer (after the score line):**
+- If the simplification specialist was dispatched and returned findings, sum
+  their `lines_removable` values and print: `net: -N lines possible` (omit
+  findings without the field from the sum).
+- If it was dispatched and returned NO FINDINGS, print:
+  `Simplification: lean already — nothing to cut.`
+- If it was not dispatched, print neither line.
+
 These findings flow into Step 5 Fix-First alongside the CRITICAL pass findings from Step 4.
-The Fix-First heuristic applies identically — specialist findings follow the same AUTO-FIX vs ASK classification.
+The Fix-First heuristic applies identically — specialist findings follow the same AUTO-FIX vs ASK classification (except advisory findings, which are ASK-only per the carve-out above).
 
 **Compile per-specialist stats:**
 After merging findings, compile a `specialists` object for the review-log entry in Step 5.8.
-For each specialist (testing, maintainability, security, performance, data-migration, api-contract, design, red-team):
+For each specialist (testing, maintainability, security, performance, data-migration, api-contract, design, simplification, red-team):
 - If dispatched: `{"dispatched": true, "findings": N, "critical": N, "informational": N}`
 - If skipped by scope: `{"dispatched": false, "reason": "scope"}`
 - If skipped by gating: `{"dispatched": false, "reason": "gated"}`
diff --git a/review/specialists/simplification.md b/review/specialists/simplification.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2b6110799
--- /dev/null
+++ b/review/specialists/simplification.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Simplification Specialist Review Checklist
+
+Scope: Conditional (DIFF_LINES > 100). This lens hunts unrequested *structure* only: abstractions with one implementation, hand-rolled stdlib, dependencies duplicating platform features, dead flexibility. Coverage gaps are out of scope — the Completeness Gaps checklist category owns those. Never flag a test, an error path, or an edge-case branch for deletion.
+Output: JSON objects, one finding per line. Schema:
+{"severity":"INFORMATIONAL","confidence":N,"path":"file","line":N,"category":"delete|stdlib|native|speculative|shrink","summary":"...","fix":"...","lines_removable":N,"advisory":true,"fingerprint":"path:line:category","specialist":"simplification"}
+Required: severity (always INFORMATIONAL), confidence, path, category, summary, advisory (always true), specialist.
+Optional: line, fix, fingerprint, evidence, lines_removable (the net lines deleted if the fix is applied — the merge step sums this for the `net:` footer).
+If no findings: output `NO FINDINGS` and nothing else.
+
+Findings from this specialist are ADVISORY: they are excluded from the PR Quality Score and are never auto-applied by Fix-First — the merge step handles both carve-outs.
+
+---
+
+## The five tags (closed vocabulary — every finding uses exactly one as its `category`)
+
+- `delete:` dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing.
+- `stdlib:` hand-rolled thing the standard library ships. Name the function.
+- `native:` dependency or code doing what the platform already does. Name the feature.
+- `speculative:` abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, layer with one caller.
+- `shrink:` same logic, fewer lines — only when the reduction is ≥5 lines. Show the shorter form.
+
+## Finding style — one line each, location + what to cut + what replaces it
+
+❌ "This EmailValidator class might be more complex than necessary, have you
+considered whether all these validation rules are needed at this stage?"
+
+✅ `{"severity":"INFORMATIONAL","confidence":8,"path":"lib/email.ts","line":12,"category":"stdlib","summary":"27-line validator class — '@' in email covers it; real validation is the confirmation mail","fix":"replace class with a one-line includes('@') check","lines_removable":26,"advisory":true,"specialist":"simplification"}`
+
+✅ `{"severity":"INFORMATIONAL","confidence":9,"path":"app/dates.ts","line":4,"category":"native","summary":"moment.js imported for one format call","fix":"Intl.DateTimeFormat, 0 deps","lines_removable":3,"advisory":true,"specialist":"simplification"}`
+
+✅ `{"severity":"INFORMATIONAL","confidence":8,"path":"repo.py","line":88,"category":"speculative","summary":"AbstractRepository with one implementation","fix":"inline it until a second implementation exists","lines_removable":41,"advisory":true,"specialist":"simplification"}`
+
+✅ `{"severity":"INFORMATIONAL","confidence":7,"path":"sync.ts","line":52,"category":"delete","summary":"retry wrapper around an idempotent local call","fix":"nothing replaces it","lines_removable":19,"advisory":true,"specialist":"simplification"}`
+
+## What to hunt
+
+- Dependencies the stdlib or platform already ships (`<input type="date">` over a picker lib, CSS over JS, DB constraint over app code)
+- Single-implementation interfaces, factories with one product, wrappers that only delegate
+- Files exporting one thing, dead flags and config, hand-rolled stdlib
+- Manual loops that a built-in expresses in one line (≥5 lines saved only)
+
+## Suppressions — DO NOT flag these (inherited from the main checklist, binding here)
+
+- "X is redundant with Y" when the redundancy is harmless and aids readability
+- Consistency-only changes (wrapping a value in a conditional to match how another constant is guarded)
+- Tests, error paths, edge-case branches, input validation, security measures, accessibility — NEVER deletion targets; coverage is the Completeness Gaps category's job, and the house rule is "If A is 70 lines more, choose A" (ETHOS.md)
+- A single smoke test or assert-based self-check — that is the completeness minimum, not bloat
+- Deliberate `gstack-shortcut(dec-*)` markers — already acknowledged debt with a ledger entry
+- ANYTHING already addressed in the diff you're reviewing — read the FULL diff before commenting
diff --git a/scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts b/scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts
index 029367deb..3e936751b 100644
--- a/scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts
+++ b/scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ Based on the scope signals above, select which specialists to dispatch.
 5. **Data Migration** — if SCOPE_MIGRATIONS=true. Read \`${ctx.paths.skillRoot}/review/specialists/data-migration.md\`
 6. **API Contract** — if SCOPE_API=true. Read \`${ctx.paths.skillRoot}/review/specialists/api-contract.md\`
 7. **Design** — if SCOPE_FRONTEND=true. Use the existing design review checklist at \`${ctx.paths.skillRoot}/review/design-checklist.md\`
+8. **Simplification** — if DIFF_LINES > 100. Read \`${ctx.paths.skillRoot}/review/specialists/simplification.md\`. Advisory-only lens: hunts unrequested structure (hand-rolled stdlib, one-implementation abstractions, dependencies duplicating platform features), never coverage.
 
 ### Adaptive gating
 
@@ -76,7 +77,7 @@ For each conditional specialist that passed scope gating, check the \`gstack-spe
 - If tagged \`[GATE_CANDIDATE]\` (0 findings in 10+ dispatches): skip it. Print: "[specialist] auto-gated (0 findings in N reviews)."
 - If tagged \`[NEVER_GATE]\`: always dispatch regardless of hit rate. Security and data-migration are insurance policy specialists — they should run even when silent.
 
-**Force flags:** If the user's prompt includes \`--security\`, \`--performance\`, \`--testing\`, \`--maintainability\`, \`--data-migration\`, \`--api-contract\`, \`--design\`, or \`--all-specialists\`, force-include that specialist regardless of gating.
+**Force flags:** If the user's prompt includes \`--security\`, \`--performance\`, \`--testing\`, \`--maintainability\`, \`--data-migration\`, \`--api-contract\`, \`--design\`, \`--simplification\`, or \`--all-specialists\`, force-include that specialist regardless of gating.
 
 Note which specialists were selected, gated, and skipped. Print the selection:
 "Dispatching N specialists: [names]. Skipped: [names] (scope not detected). Gated: [names] (0 findings in N+ reviews)."`;
@@ -167,8 +168,14 @@ Group findings by fingerprint. For findings sharing the same fingerprint:
 - Confidence 3-4: move to appendix (suppress from main findings)
 - Confidence 1-2: suppress entirely
 
+**Advisory carve-out (simplification specialist):**
+Findings with \`"advisory": true\` are excluded from BOTH the quality_score
+summation and the findings-count header below — they are structure suggestions,
+not defects, and must not make "5 findings … 10/10" look contradictory. In
+Fix-First they are ASK-only: NEVER auto-applied, even when mechanical.
+
 **Compute PR Quality Score:**
-After merging, compute the quality score:
+After merging, compute the quality score over NON-advisory findings only:
 \`quality_score = max(0, 10 - (critical_count * 2 + informational_count * 0.5))\`
 Cap at 10. Log this in the review result at the end.
 
@@ -178,7 +185,8 @@ Present the merged findings in the same format as the current review:
 \`\`\`
 SPECIALIST REVIEW: N findings (X critical, Y informational) from Z specialists
 
-[For each finding, in order: CRITICAL first, then INFORMATIONAL, sorted by confidence descending]
+[For each finding, in order: CRITICAL first, then INFORMATIONAL, sorted by confidence descending;
+ advisory findings last, each rendered with an [ADVISORY] label in place of the severity]
 [SEVERITY] (confidence: N/10, specialist: name) path:line — summary
   Fix: recommended fix
   [If MULTI-SPECIALIST CONFIRMED: show confirmation note]
@@ -186,12 +194,20 @@ SPECIALIST REVIEW: N findings (X critical, Y informational) from Z specialists
 PR Quality Score: X/10
 \`\`\`
 
+**Simplification footer (after the score line):**
+- If the simplification specialist was dispatched and returned findings, sum
+  their \`lines_removable\` values and print: \`net: -N lines possible\` (omit
+  findings without the field from the sum).
+- If it was dispatched and returned NO FINDINGS, print:
+  \`Simplification: lean already — nothing to cut.\`
+- If it was not dispatched, print neither line.
+
 These findings flow into ${fixFirstRef} alongside ${critPassRef}.
-The Fix-First heuristic applies identically — specialist findings follow the same AUTO-FIX vs ASK classification.
+The Fix-First heuristic applies identically — specialist findings follow the same AUTO-FIX vs ASK classification (except advisory findings, which are ASK-only per the carve-out above).
 
 **Compile per-specialist stats:**
 After merging findings, compile a \`specialists\` object for ${persistRef}.
-For each specialist (testing, maintainability, security, performance, data-migration, api-contract, design, red-team):
+For each specialist (testing, maintainability, security, performance, data-migration, api-contract, design, simplification, red-team):
 - If dispatched: \`{"dispatched": true, "findings": N, "critical": N, "informational": N}\`
 - If skipped by scope: \`{"dispatched": false, "reason": "scope"}\`
 - If skipped by gating: \`{"dispatched": false, "reason": "gated"}\`
diff --git a/ship/sections/review-army.md b/ship/sections/review-army.md
index 247c6b2f0..669da2ba9 100644
--- a/ship/sections/review-army.md
+++ b/ship/sections/review-army.md
@@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ Based on the scope signals above, select which specialists to dispatch.
 5. **Data Migration** — if SCOPE_MIGRATIONS=true. Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/data-migration.md`
 6. **API Contract** — if SCOPE_API=true. Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/api-contract.md`
 7. **Design** — if SCOPE_FRONTEND=true. Use the existing design review checklist at `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/design-checklist.md`
+8. **Simplification** — if DIFF_LINES > 100. Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/simplification.md`. Advisory-only lens: hunts unrequested structure (hand-rolled stdlib, one-implementation abstractions, dependencies duplicating platform features), never coverage.
 
 ### Adaptive gating
 
@@ -192,7 +193,7 @@ For each conditional specialist that passed scope gating, check the `gstack-spec
 - If tagged `[GATE_CANDIDATE]` (0 findings in 10+ dispatches): skip it. Print: "[specialist] auto-gated (0 findings in N reviews)."
 - If tagged `[NEVER_GATE]`: always dispatch regardless of hit rate. Security and data-migration are insurance policy specialists — they should run even when silent.
 
-**Force flags:** If the user's prompt includes `--security`, `--performance`, `--testing`, `--maintainability`, `--data-migration`, `--api-contract`, `--design`, or `--all-specialists`, force-include that specialist regardless of gating.
+**Force flags:** If the user's prompt includes `--security`, `--performance`, `--testing`, `--maintainability`, `--data-migration`, `--api-contract`, `--design`, `--simplification`, or `--all-specialists`, force-include that specialist regardless of gating.
 
 Note which specialists were selected, gated, and skipped. Print the selection:
 "Dispatching N specialists: [names]. Skipped: [names] (scope not detected). Gated: [names] (0 findings in N+ reviews)."
@@ -277,8 +278,14 @@ Group findings by fingerprint. For findings sharing the same fingerprint:
 - Confidence 3-4: move to appendix (suppress from main findings)
 - Confidence 1-2: suppress entirely
 
+**Advisory carve-out (simplification specialist):**
+Findings with `"advisory": true` are excluded from BOTH the quality_score
+summation and the findings-count header below — they are structure suggestions,
+not defects, and must not make "5 findings … 10/10" look contradictory. In
+Fix-First they are ASK-only: NEVER auto-applied, even when mechanical.
+
 **Compute PR Quality Score:**
-After merging, compute the quality score:
+After merging, compute the quality score over NON-advisory findings only:
 `quality_score = max(0, 10 - (critical_count * 2 + informational_count * 0.5))`
 Cap at 10. Log this in the review result at the end.
 
@@ -288,7 +295,8 @@ Present the merged findings in the same format as the current review:
 ```
 SPECIALIST REVIEW: N findings (X critical, Y informational) from Z specialists
 
-[For each finding, in order: CRITICAL first, then INFORMATIONAL, sorted by confidence descending]
+[For each finding, in order: CRITICAL first, then INFORMATIONAL, sorted by confidence descending;
+ advisory findings last, each rendered with an [ADVISORY] label in place of the severity]
 [SEVERITY] (confidence: N/10, specialist: name) path:line — summary
   Fix: recommended fix
   [If MULTI-SPECIALIST CONFIRMED: show confirmation note]
@@ -296,12 +304,20 @@ SPECIALIST REVIEW: N findings (X critical, Y informational) from Z specialists
 PR Quality Score: X/10
 ```
 
+**Simplification footer (after the score line):**
+- If the simplification specialist was dispatched and returned findings, sum
+  their `lines_removable` values and print: `net: -N lines possible` (omit
+  findings without the field from the sum).
+- If it was dispatched and returned NO FINDINGS, print:
+  `Simplification: lean already — nothing to cut.`
+- If it was not dispatched, print neither line.
+
 These findings flow into the Fix-First flow (item 4) alongside the checklist pass (Step 9).
-The Fix-First heuristic applies identically — specialist findings follow the same AUTO-FIX vs ASK classification.
+The Fix-First heuristic applies identically — specialist findings follow the same AUTO-FIX vs ASK classification (except advisory findings, which are ASK-only per the carve-out above).
 
 **Compile per-specialist stats:**
 After merging findings, compile a `specialists` object for the review-log persist.
-For each specialist (testing, maintainability, security, performance, data-migration, api-contract, design, red-team):
+For each specialist (testing, maintainability, security, performance, data-migration, api-contract, design, simplification, red-team):
 - If dispatched: `{"dispatched": true, "findings": N, "critical": N, "informational": N}`
 - If skipped by scope: `{"dispatched": false, "reason": "scope"}`
 - If skipped by gating: `{"dispatched": false, "reason": "gated"}`
diff --git a/test/fixtures/review-army-lean-complete.js b/test/fixtures/review-army-lean-complete.js
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..3810dfa14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/fixtures/review-army-lean-complete.js
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+// Lean-and-complete fixture: the false-flag precision case for the
+// simplification specialist. This is an ETHOS "choose A" diff — small,
+// covers the error path and edge cases, carries its own check. There is
+// nothing here to cut; a correct simplification pass returns NO FINDINGS.
+
+function parsePort(value) {
+  if (value === null || value === undefined || value === '') {
+    throw new Error(`parsePort: missing value`);
+  }
+  const port = Number(value);
+  if (!Number.isInteger(port) || port < 1 || port > 65535) {
+    throw new Error(`parsePort: expected integer in 1-65535, got ${JSON.stringify(value)}`);
+  }
+  return port;
+}
+
+// Self-check: the smallest thing that fails if the logic breaks.
+function testParsePort() {
+  const assert = require('node:assert');
+  assert.strictEqual(parsePort('8080'), 8080);
+  assert.strictEqual(parsePort(443), 443);
+  assert.throws(() => parsePort(''), /missing value/);
+  assert.throws(() => parsePort('0'), /1-65535/);
+  assert.throws(() => parsePort('65536'), /1-65535/);
+  assert.throws(() => parsePort('abc'), /1-65535/);
+}
+
+module.exports = { parsePort, testParsePort };
diff --git a/test/fixtures/review-army-overbuild.js b/test/fixtures/review-army-overbuild.js
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..eecd8f5d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/fixtures/review-army-overbuild.js
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+// Planted over-engineering fixture for the simplification specialist.
+// Three deliberate invitations: a hand-rolled date formatter the platform
+// ships (native:), an abstract layer with exactly one implementation
+// (speculative:), and a config block nothing reads (delete:).
+
+// INVITATION 1 (native:): Intl.DateTimeFormat does all of this in one line.
+class DateFormatter {
+  constructor(locale) {
+    this.locale = locale || 'en-US';
+    this.monthNames = [
+      'January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June',
+      'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December',
+    ];
+  }
+
+  pad(n) {
+    return n < 10 ? '0' + n : String(n);
+  }
+
+  formatLong(date) {
+    const month = this.monthNames[date.getMonth()];
+    return `${month} ${date.getDate()}, ${date.getFullYear()}`;
+  }
+
+  formatShort(date) {
+    return `${this.pad(date.getMonth() + 1)}/${this.pad(date.getDate())}/${date.getFullYear()}`;
+  }
+
+  formatTime(date) {
+    const hours = date.getHours() % 12 || 12;
+    const suffix = date.getHours() >= 12 ? 'PM' : 'AM';
+    return `${hours}:${this.pad(date.getMinutes())} ${suffix}`;
+  }
+}
+
+// INVITATION 2 (speculative:): abstract base with a single implementation.
+class AbstractItemStore {
+  save(item) {
+    throw new Error('not implemented');
+  }
+  load(id) {
+    throw new Error('not implemented');
+  }
+}
+
+class MemoryItemStore extends AbstractItemStore {
+  constructor() {
+    super();
+    this.items = new Map();
+  }
+  save(item) {
+    this.items.set(item.id, item);
+    return item;
+  }
+  load(id) {
+    return this.items.get(id) || null;
+  }
+}
+
+// INVITATION 3 (delete:): configuration nothing in this file (or repo) reads.
+const FORMATTER_CONFIG = {
+  enableLegacyMode: false,
+  cacheSize: 128,
+  strictParsing: true,
+  fallbackLocale: 'en-GB',
+};
+
+module.exports = { DateFormatter, MemoryItemStore, FORMATTER_CONFIG };
diff --git a/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts b/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
index 47a94b466..be9226581 100644
--- a/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
+++ b/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
@@ -943,6 +943,7 @@ describe('TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT placeholders', () => {
       'performance.md',
       'data-migration.md',
       'api-contract.md',
+      'simplification.md',
       'red-team.md',
     ];
     for (const f of expected) {
@@ -950,6 +951,32 @@ describe('TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT placeholders', () => {
     }
   });
 
+  // Regression pins for the simplification specialist (advisory carve-out edits
+  // the pre-existing quality_score instruction, so the rendered contract is
+  // pinned statically — the carve-out and the early-out line must both survive
+  // regeneration verbatim).
+  test('simplification advisory carve-out and early-out render into review docs', () => {
+    const reviewArmySection = fs.readFileSync(
+      path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'sections', 'review-army.md'),
+      'utf-8',
+    );
+    expect(reviewArmySection).toContain('"advisory": true');
+    expect(reviewArmySection).toContain('quality score over NON-advisory findings only');
+    expect(reviewArmySection).toContain('Simplification: lean already — nothing to cut.');
+    expect(reviewArmySection).toContain('net: -N lines possible');
+    expect(reviewArmySection).toContain('--simplification');
+    // The specialist itself must never carry a verdict-shaped zero-findings line.
+    const spec = fs.readFileSync(
+      path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'specialists', 'simplification.md'),
+      'utf-8',
+    );
+    expect(spec).toContain('NO FINDINGS');
+    expect(spec).not.toContain('Lean already. Ship.');
+    // Closed tag vocabulary: the disavowed yagni: frame must not appear.
+    expect(spec).toContain('speculative');
+    expect(spec.toLowerCase()).not.toContain('"yagni"');
+  });
+
   test('each specialist file has standard header with scope and output format', () => {
     const specDir = path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'specialists');
     const files = fs.readdirSync(specDir).filter(f => f.endsWith('.md'));
diff --git a/test/helpers/touchfiles-data.ts b/test/helpers/touchfiles-data.ts
index 90b8877a4..7d67be823 100644
--- a/test/helpers/touchfiles-data.ts
+++ b/test/helpers/touchfiles-data.ts
@@ -66,6 +66,8 @@ export const E2E_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
   'review-army-quality-score':    ['review/**', 'scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts'],
   'review-army-json-findings':    ['review/**', 'scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts'],
   'review-army-red-team':         ['review/**', 'scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts'],
+  'review-army-simplification':   ['review/**', 'scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts'],
+  'review-army-simplification-precision': ['review/**', 'scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts'],
   'review-army-consensus':        ['review/**', 'scripts/resolvers/review-army.ts'],
 
   // Office Hours
@@ -489,6 +491,8 @@ export const E2E_TIERS: Record<string, 'gate' | 'periodic'> = {
   'review-army-json-findings': 'gate',      // JSON schema compliance
   'review-army-red-team': 'periodic',       // Multi-agent coordination
   'review-army-consensus': 'periodic',      // Multi-specialist agreement
+  'review-army-simplification': 'periodic', // Advisory lens quality benchmark
+  'review-army-simplification-precision': 'periodic', // False-flag noise benchmark
 
   // Office Hours
   'office-hours-spec-review': 'gate',
diff --git a/test/skill-e2e-review-army.test.ts b/test/skill-e2e-review-army.test.ts
index 0bbe74a07..a256fa187 100644
--- a/test/skill-e2e-review-army.test.ts
+++ b/test/skill-e2e-review-army.test.ts
@@ -588,6 +588,131 @@ Write findings to ${dir}/review-output.md`,
   }, 210_000);
 });
 
+// --- Review Army: Simplification specialist (activation) ---
+
+describeIfSelected('Review Army: Simplification activation', ['review-army-simplification'], () => {
+  let dir: string;
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    const repo = setupRepo('army-simplification');
+    dir = repo.dir;
+
+    fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'app.js'), '// base\n');
+    repo.run('git', ['add', '.']);
+    repo.run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'initial']);
+
+    repo.run('git', ['checkout', '-b', 'feature/date-utils']);
+    const overbuild = fs.readFileSync(
+      path.join(ROOT, 'test', 'fixtures', 'review-army-overbuild.js'), 'utf-8'
+    );
+    fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'date_utils.js'), overbuild);
+    repo.run('git', ['add', '.']);
+    repo.run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'add date utils']);
+
+    copyReviewFiles(dir);
+  });
+
+  afterAll(() => { try { fs.rmSync(dir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {} });
+
+  testConcurrentIfSelected('review-army-simplification', async () => {
+    const result = await runSkillTest({
+      prompt: `You are in a git repo on a feature branch that adds a JS utility file.
+Read review-SKILL.md for instructions. Also read review-checklist.md.
+The specialist checklists are in review-specialists/ (testing.md, simplification.md, etc.).
+
+Skip the preamble, lake intro, telemetry sections.
+Run Step 4.5 (Review Army) only.
+The base branch is main. The diff is over 100 lines, so the Simplification specialist should activate.
+
+For the specialist dispatch, read review-specialists/simplification.md and apply it against the diff.
+
+Write your findings to ${dir}/review-output.md`,
+      workingDirectory: dir,
+      maxTurns: 20,
+      timeout: 180_000,
+      testName: 'review-army-simplification',
+      runId,
+    });
+
+    logCost('/review army simplification', result);
+    recordE2E(evalCollector, '/review army simplification detection', 'Review Army', result);
+    expect(result.exitReason).toBe('success');
+
+    const outputPath = path.join(dir, 'review-output.md');
+    expect(fs.existsSync(outputPath)).toBe(true);
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(outputPath, 'utf-8').toLowerCase();
+    // At least one planted invitation caught, expressed through the closed
+    // tag vocabulary or its obvious phrasing.
+    const hasStructureFinding =
+      content.includes('native') ||
+      content.includes('stdlib') ||
+      content.includes('speculative') ||
+      content.includes('intl') ||
+      content.includes('one implementation') ||
+      content.includes('single implementation');
+    expect(hasStructureFinding).toBe(true);
+    // Advisory findings must not read as defects: the disavowed frame stays out.
+    expect(content).not.toContain('lean already. ship.');
+  }, 210_000);
+});
+
+// --- Review Army: Simplification specialist (false-flag precision) ---
+
+describeIfSelected('Review Army: Simplification precision', ['review-army-simplification-precision'], () => {
+  let dir: string;
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    const repo = setupRepo('army-simplification-lean');
+    dir = repo.dir;
+
+    fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'app.js'), '// base\n');
+    repo.run('git', ['add', '.']);
+    repo.run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'initial']);
+
+    repo.run('git', ['checkout', '-b', 'feature/parse-port']);
+    const lean = fs.readFileSync(
+      path.join(ROOT, 'test', 'fixtures', 'review-army-lean-complete.js'), 'utf-8'
+    );
+    fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'parse_port.js'), lean);
+    repo.run('git', ['add', '.']);
+    repo.run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'add parsePort with self-check']);
+
+    copyReviewFiles(dir);
+  });
+
+  afterAll(() => { try { fs.rmSync(dir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {} });
+
+  testConcurrentIfSelected('review-army-simplification-precision', async () => {
+    const result = await runSkillTest({
+      prompt: `You are in a git repo on a feature branch that adds one small, complete utility (validation + error path + self-check).
+Read review-specialists/simplification.md and apply it against the diff of the current branch vs main (git diff main).
+
+Write the specialist's raw output to ${dir}/review-output.md — either the finding JSON lines or the exact NO FINDINGS sentinel.`,
+      workingDirectory: dir,
+      maxTurns: 12,
+      timeout: 150_000,
+      testName: 'review-army-simplification-precision',
+      runId,
+    });
+
+    logCost('/review army simplification precision', result);
+    recordE2E(evalCollector, '/review army simplification precision', 'Review Army', result);
+    expect(result.exitReason).toBe('success');
+
+    const outputPath = path.join(dir, 'review-output.md');
+    expect(fs.existsSync(outputPath)).toBe(true);
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(outputPath, 'utf-8');
+    // Precision: a lean, complete diff yields no simplification findings.
+    // The specialist must not flag the error path or the self-check for
+    // deletion — that is the noise failure mode this case pins.
+    const flaggedTestOrErrorPath =
+      /"category"\s*:\s*"(delete|shrink|stdlib|native|speculative)"/i.test(content) &&
+      /(testparseport|self-check|assert|throw)/i.test(content);
+    expect(flaggedTestOrErrorPath).toBe(false);
+    expect(content.toUpperCase()).toContain('NO FINDINGS');
+  }, 180_000);
+});
+
 // Finalize eval collector
 afterAll(async () => {
   await finalizeEvalCollector(evalCollector);