diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index aeca388..e9ff7e4 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -24,6 +24,10 @@ the right evidence path.
 For the shortest boundary check before adding or reviewing new material, use
 the [repository scope map](docs/repo-scope-map.md).
 
+For why the scientific-computing background helps this repository's review
+style without widening its scope, use
+[`docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md`](docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md).
+
 For the SBOM tool's risk-model boundary, use
 [`docs/risk-model-boundary.md`](docs/risk-model-boundary.md). It states which
 fields affect risk buckets, which fields are context only, and which claims the
@@ -170,6 +174,8 @@ they do not prove the same thing.
   [`scripts/validate-reviewer-routes.py`](scripts/validate-reviewer-routes.py)
 - Repository scope map:
   [`docs/repo-scope-map.md`](docs/repo-scope-map.md)
+- Scientific-computing background note:
+  [`docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md`](docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md)
 - Risk model boundary:
   [`docs/risk-model-boundary.md`](docs/risk-model-boundary.md)
 
diff --git a/docs/reviewer-brief.md b/docs/reviewer-brief.md
index f364195..f6ac513 100644
--- a/docs/reviewer-brief.md
+++ b/docs/reviewer-brief.md
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ workflows, but they are not part of the `sbom-diff-and-risk` release surface.
 | Review question | Start here | Stop when |
 | --- | --- | --- |
 | What is the repository shape? | This brief, the root [README](../README.md), and the [repository scope map](repo-scope-map.md). | You can distinguish the flagship SBOM tool from the supporting diagnostics projects. |
+| Why does scientific-computing background help review? | The [scientific-computing background note](why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md). | You can explain reproducibility, data-pipeline, and uncertainty-boundary habits without widening repository scope. |
 | What should I review for the SBOM tool? | The SBOM [reviewer path](../tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-path.md). | You have chosen the right 30-second, 5-minute, 15-minute, release, or deep-review route. |
 | What does the SBOM risk model actually use? | The [risk model boundary](risk-model-boundary.md). | You can separate risk inputs from context-only fields and non-claims. |
 | Can the SBOM examples be reproduced? | The SBOM [example artifact regeneration guide](../tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/example-artifact-regeneration.md). | `python scripts/regenerate-example-artifacts.py --check` passes. |
@@ -53,6 +54,10 @@ workflows, but they are not part of the `sbom-diff-and-risk` release surface.
   intentionally deferred production PyPI decision docs.
 - Scope map: `docs/repo-scope-map.md` keeps the flagship/supporting split and
   repository non-claims explicit.
+- Scientific-computing background note:
+  `docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md` explains
+  reproducibility, data-pipeline, and uncertainty-boundary habits without
+  widening repository scope.
 - Risk model boundary: `docs/risk-model-boundary.md` states which fields affect
   risk classification, which fields are context only, and what the model never
   infers.
diff --git a/docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md b/docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5170a46
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# Why Scientific Computing Background Helps
+
+This note explains why scientific-computing habits are useful to this
+repository's review style. It is a working-method note, not a domain identity
+claim and not a reason to expand repository scope.
+
+## Reproducibility
+
+Scientific-computing work rewards runs that can be repeated from explicit
+inputs. That habit maps directly to this repository's strongest reviewer
+surface:
+
+- checked-in fixtures instead of private source material
+- deterministic commands that can be rerun locally
+- generated artifacts that can be compared against known outputs
+- documentation that separates what was run from what was inferred
+
+For `sbom-diff-and-risk`, this means example reports, policy sidecars, SARIF
+samples, and release evidence should stay reproducible from public-safe inputs.
+The point is not to claim broad expertise; it is to make review evidence easier
+to repeat.
+
+## Data Pipeline
+
+Scientific-computing workflows often make the pipeline visible: ingest,
+normalize, transform, summarize, and report. That pattern helps keep this
+repository inspectable.
+
+For the flagship SBOM tool, the useful pipeline boundary is:
+
+- parse SBOMs or dependency manifests
+- normalize package records into a stable internal shape
+- compute local diffs and heuristic findings
+- apply explicit local policy when requested
+- emit machine-readable and human-readable review artifacts
+
+Each stage should have a clear input and output. When a later report includes
+context from an earlier stage, the report should preserve enough provenance for
+a reviewer to understand where the value came from. Hidden enrichment, opaque
+scoring, and untraceable conclusions work against that goal.
+
+## Uncertainty Boundary
+
+Scientific-computing review also depends on knowing what the data cannot prove.
+That habit matters here because dependency evidence is easy to overstate.
+
+The repository should keep uncertainty boundaries explicit:
+
+- local manifests and SBOMs prove what they contain, not what the ecosystem
+  currently knows
+- optional enrichment is evidence for that run, not a universal truth source
+- policy output is a local decision, not a package safety verdict
+- missing evidence should stay visible as missing evidence
+- unknowns should be reported as unknown or `not_evaluated`, not filled with
+  guesses
+
+This is why the docs keep non-claims close to the examples. A reviewer should
+be able to say what was observed, what was reproduced, and what remains outside
+the evidence boundary.
+
+## Scope Rule
+
+Use scientific-computing background as a discipline for reproducible evidence,
+clear data flow, and careful uncertainty handling. Do not use it as a reason to
+add unrelated project surfaces, broaden claims, or dilute the flagship
+`sbom-diff-and-risk` reviewer route.
diff --git a/scripts/validate-reviewer-routes.py b/scripts/validate-reviewer-routes.py
index d8a3d7d..61d2d69 100644
--- a/scripts/validate-reviewer-routes.py
+++ b/scripts/validate-reviewer-routes.py
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
     Path("README.md"),
     Path("docs/reviewer-brief.md"),
     Path("docs/repo-scope-map.md"),
+    Path("docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md"),
     Path("docs/risk-model-boundary.md"),
     Path("tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/report-schema.md"),
     Path("tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/github-actions-consumer-example.md"),
@@ -47,6 +48,7 @@
     Path("README.md"): {
         "docs/reviewer-brief.md",
         "docs/repo-scope-map.md",
+        "docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md",
         "docs/risk-model-boundary.md",
         "tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-path.md",
         "tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-evidence-pack.md",
@@ -57,6 +59,7 @@
     Path("docs/reviewer-brief.md"): {
         "README.md",
         "docs/repo-scope-map.md",
+        "docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md",
         "docs/risk-model-boundary.md",
         "tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-path.md",
         "tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/example-artifact-regeneration.md",
@@ -65,6 +68,7 @@
         "projects/python-weather-diagnostics-toolkit/docs/reviewer-path.md",
     },
     Path("docs/repo-scope-map.md"): set(),
+    Path("docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md"): set(),
     Path("docs/risk-model-boundary.md"): {
         "tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/dependency-risk-heuristics.md",
         "tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/src/sbom_diff_risk/diffing.py",
@@ -150,11 +154,13 @@
     Path("README.md"): (
         "current flagship tool",
         "not part of the `sbom-diff-and-risk` release surface",
+        "why the scientific-computing background helps",
         "Production PyPI publishing: intentionally deferred",
     ),
     Path("docs/reviewer-brief.md"): (
         "The current flagship project is",
         "supporting diagnostics projects",
+        "scientific-computing background note",
         "production PyPI publishing remains intentionally deferred",
     ),
     Path("docs/repo-scope-map.md"): (
@@ -170,6 +176,18 @@
         "not a CVE resolver",
         "not a production PyPI release claim",
     ),
+    Path("docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md"): (
+        "Reproducibility",
+        "Data Pipeline",
+        "Uncertainty Boundary",
+        "not a domain identity claim",
+        "not a reason to expand repository scope",
+        "checked-in fixtures instead of private source material",
+        "Each stage should have a clear input and output.",
+        "missing evidence should stay visible as missing evidence",
+        "not a package safety verdict",
+        "Do not use it as a reason to add unrelated project surfaces",
+    ),
     Path("docs/risk-model-boundary.md"): (
         "Fields that affect risk classification",
         "Context-only fields",
@@ -243,6 +261,16 @@
     ),
 }
 
+FORBIDDEN_TEXT = {
+    Path("docs/why-scientific-computing-background-helps.md"): (
+        "meteorology",
+        "weather",
+        "climate",
+        "atmospheric",
+        "precipitation",
+    ),
+}
+
 REQUIRED_REVIEWER_PATHS = (
     Path("tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-path.md"),
     Path("projects/precipitation-anomaly-diagnostics/docs/reviewer-path.md"),
@@ -527,6 +555,13 @@ def validate_required_text(markdown_path: Path, errors: list[str]) -> None:
             errors.append(f"{markdown_path}: missing reviewer contract phrase: {phrase!r}")
 
 
+def validate_forbidden_text(markdown_path: Path, errors: list[str]) -> None:
+    text = read_markdown(markdown_path).lower()
+    for phrase in FORBIDDEN_TEXT.get(markdown_path, ()):
+        if phrase.lower() in text:
+            errors.append(f"{markdown_path}: forbidden scope phrase present: {phrase!r}")
+
+
 def validate_required_paths(errors: list[str]) -> None:
     for path in REQUIRED_REVIEWER_PATHS:
         if not (REPO_ROOT / path).is_file():
@@ -577,6 +612,7 @@ def main() -> int:
 
         validate_required_links(markdown_path, errors)
         validate_required_text(markdown_path, errors)
+        validate_forbidden_text(markdown_path, errors)
 
     validate_required_paths(errors)
     validate_workflow_path_filters(reviewer_surface_markdown, errors)