diff --git a/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/README.md b/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/README.md
index 261c88d..a8cdea9 100644
--- a/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/README.md
+++ b/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/README.md
@@ -8,10 +8,12 @@ It uses conservative heuristics for change intelligence. By default it does not
 
 ## Start Here
 
-This project has two different provenance stories:
-
-1. If you want to verify `sbom-diff-and-risk` itself, start with [docs/verification.md](D:/OneDrive/Code/scientific-computing-toolkit/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/verification.md).
-2. If you want to use `sbom-diff-and-risk` to analyze third-party dependency provenance, start with [Dependency provenance analysis](#dependency-provenance-analysis-opt-in) and [Dependency provenance reporting](#dependency-provenance-reporting).
+This project has two different provenance stories:
+
+For a concise reviewer-facing overview, start with [docs/reviewer-brief.md](docs/reviewer-brief.md).
+
+1. If you want to verify `sbom-diff-and-risk` itself, start with [docs/verification.md](D:/OneDrive/Code/scientific-computing-toolkit/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/verification.md).
+2. If you want to use `sbom-diff-and-risk` to analyze third-party dependency provenance, start with [Dependency provenance analysis](#dependency-provenance-analysis-opt-in) and [Dependency provenance reporting](#dependency-provenance-reporting).
 
 ## Scope
 
diff --git a/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-brief.md b/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-brief.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1639259
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/sbom-diff-and-risk/docs/reviewer-brief.md
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Reviewer brief
+
+## Summary
+
+`sbom-diff-and-risk` is a local CLI for comparing two SBOMs or dependency manifests and producing deterministic review artifacts: JSON, Markdown, and SARIF. It is built for conservative supply-chain review, not for vulnerability scanning or package reputation scoring.
+
+## Why this project matters
+
+Dependency review often needs evidence that is stable enough for code review, CI, and audit trails. This project turns dependency changes into repeatable findings, optional policy outcomes, and machine-readable security output while keeping default analysis offline and file-based.
+
+## Capability map
+
+| Area | What exists |
+| --- | --- |
+| Deterministic local analysis | Compares CycloneDX, SPDX, `requirements.txt`, and conservative `pyproject.toml` inputs without hidden network access by default. |
+| Reviewer output | Produces JSON and Markdown reports for dependency diffs, heuristic risk buckets, and policy outcomes. |
+| Security tooling output | Emits a conservative SARIF subset for selected high-signal findings and explicit policy violations. |
+| Provenance-aware reporting | Optionally records PyPI provenance and integrity evidence when `--enrich-pypi` is enabled. |
+| Scorecard signals | Optionally records OpenSSF Scorecard evidence when `--enrich-scorecard` is enabled and a repository mapping is explicit enough. |
+| Policy support | Supports local YAML policies for thresholds, source allowlists, provenance requirements, and Scorecard thresholds. |
+
+## Evidence map
+
+| Question | Evidence path |
+| --- | --- |
+| What does the tool do? | `README.md`, examples, tests, and generated sample reports. |
+| Are default runs offline? | CLI docs, tests for no-enrichment behavior, and explicit enrichment flags. |
+| Can code scanning consume the output? | `docs/github-code-scanning.md` and `examples/sample-sarif.sarif`. |
+| Can the tool's own artifacts be verified? | `docs/self-provenance.md` for workflow artifact attestations. |
+| Can GitHub release assets be verified? | `docs/release-provenance.md` for release asset verification. |
+| Did Trusted Publishing get exercised safely? | `docs/pypi-trusted-publishing-readiness.md` documents the completed TestPyPI dry-run. |
+| Is production PyPI enabled? | `docs/pypi-production-publishing-decision.md` documents that production PyPI is intentionally deferred. |
+
+## Quick verification path
+
+1. Read this brief for the 30-second project shape.
+2. Read `README.md` for CLI scope, supported inputs, and examples.
+3. Read `docs/verification.md` to choose the right verification path.
+4. Use `docs/self-provenance.md` when verifying workflow-built wheel or source distribution artifacts.
+5. Use `docs/release-provenance.md` when verifying GitHub Release assets.
+6. Use `docs/pypi-production-publishing-decision.md` before making any production PyPI publishing decision.
+
+## What this project intentionally does not claim
+
+- It does not claim to be a vulnerability scanner.
+- It does not resolve CVEs, advisories, or exploitability.
+- It does not score package reputation or declare packages safe.
+- It does not perform hidden network enrichment.
+- It does not treat TestPyPI success as production PyPI readiness.
+- It does not currently publish to production PyPI.
+- It does not treat PyPI Trusted Publishing provenance, GitHub workflow artifact attestations, and GitHub Release asset verification as interchangeable evidence.
+
+## Resume / application wording
+
+Built `sbom-diff-and-risk`, a deterministic SBOM and dependency diff CLI that produces JSON, Markdown, and SARIF review artifacts; supports local policy checks and optional provenance/Scorecard evidence; and documents a release verification story covering GitHub artifact attestations, GitHub Release assets, TestPyPI Trusted Publishing validation, and intentionally deferred production PyPI publishing.
+