Contributor question: review process and additional verification

[ShuaixinHuang]

Hi @morluto and the REA community,

I'm ShuaixinHuang on GitHub. Could you advise on the review process for these contributions?

• #3416: MCP regression coverage for resource uncertainty
• #3480: Preserve exact static property keys
• #3514: Preserve HTML URL path identity

Each PR documents the checks performed and remaining verification gaps. I'm currently at the repository's three-open-PR limit and have prepared further focused changes on separate branches.

Is there any additional verification or preparation that would help with review, or a preferred order for these PRs? I understand maintainers' time is limited and am happy to address feedback.

Thank you for maintaining REA and for incorporating my earlier contributions.

[ShuaixinHuang]

Current review request (October 28): please assign human reviewers for #7062, #7063, #7065, #7356, #7357 and #7730 and give a clear decision: review, requested changes, defer, or close if redundant.

All six remain open, and their formal GitHub review records still contain no human review at my latest check. The first three were submitted on October 25; #7356 and #7357 on October 27; #7730 today. These replace the older PR list in the original discussion.

Repeated upstream changes have required substantial conflict resolution, fixture alignment and repeated validation while these contributions await a review decision. This maintenance burden is consuming time that I would otherwise spend on further fixes. I need a clear reviewer and next step for each contribution.

Please identify who can take these reviews. If work is no longer useful, please say so or close it rather than leave its disposition unclear. A response in the consolidated tracking issue is enough: #7762