The edit suggestion targets the article title ("Art Controversies on Grokipedia"), which corresponds to the lead/introductory section, and proposes limiting sources exclusively to three specific Grokipedia pages provided in supporting_evidence (Hat Rack Duchamp, Spiritual America gallery, and a section of rhonda_roland_shearer) while narrowing the scope to controversies "sparked on Grokipedia" rather than general art controversies. The suggestion also explicitly instructs not to perform web searches or reference external content. Research via web_search confirmed that Rhonda Roland Shearer is a real art historian whose empirical claims—that Marcel Duchamp fabricated or modified his readymades rather than finding unaltered objects—are documented in reliable sources (e.g., Wikipedia's Readymades of Marcel Duchamp page, New York Times archives, Science News, Toutfait journal). These claims remain controversial and debated in art scholarship, with some viewing them as insightful challenges to traditional narratives and others as fringe. No direct evidence of widespread acceptance or resolution was found, but the topic is verifiable externally. Browsing the supporting_evidence URLs via browse_page revealed: - Details Shearer's background, ASRL work, and empirical analyses of Duchamp readymades (including Hat Rack discrepancies/asymmetries), framing her contributions as challenging conceptual interpretations with scientific scrutiny. 
No mentions of Grokipedia-specific disputes. - https://grokipedia.com/page/Hat_Rack_Duchamp: Covers the work's history, representations, inconsistencies in documentation, and Shearer's research on ambiguities. No Grokipedia editorial controversies noted. - https://grokipedia.com/page/Spiritual_America_gallery: Describes the gallery's 1983-1984 controversy involving Richard Prince's appropriation of a Brooke Shields image, legal threats, and appropriation art ethics/market issues. No Grokipedia-specific disputes. These pages focus on the art topics themselves, not on Grokipedia-internal controversies (e.g., edit wars, policy changes, or community responses as suggested in the article outline). They are relevant to the current article text but do not support restricting sources or narrowing scope. The current lead already frames the topic as "controversies on Grokipedia" (e.g., "disputes highlighted in the encyclopedia's coverage," "editorial tensions," "conflicts...in collaboratively influenced digital encyclopedias") and cites only Grokipedia pages, including some overlapping with the suggested limits (e.g., rhonda_roland_shearer). The suggestion does not propose specific textual additions, removals, or rewrites (e.g., no exact wording changes, no removal of particular sentences/citations). It is a vague directive to "limit sources" and redefine scope, without demonstrating factual errors, bias, or unsourced claims in the current text. The instruction against web searches is suspicious and contrary to truth-seeking, as external verification confirms the underlying art controversies are real and appropriately contextualized in the lead. Restricting to a subset of internal sources risks reducing comprehensiveness and introducing circularity without justification, especially since the current citations (e.g., Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp) are logically related and not contradicted by the browsed pages. No improvement to accuracy, neutrality, or sourcing is evident; the proposal appears overly restrictive and unjustified. Reject on grounds of unverifiable/vague improvement, potential bias via arbitrary source restriction, irrelevance to highlighted section (no concrete change proposed), and failure to meet acceptance criteria for any category (no factuality correction, formatting fix, or verified content addition). The article outline already supports coverage of community/editorial responses in dedicated sections, making this lead-level restriction unnecessary and inappropriate.