My verdict for IU_0058 is ACCEPT, and the review is written to artifacts/review.json. The JSON parses, the reason is 259 characters (limit 300) and the name is 12 (limit 18).

Checked directly

• File: I downloaded it to /tmp/iu0058/c.png because /tmp/candidate.png already existed and I couldn't read it. The sha256 matches ea79c341…200c. It is a 512×512 RGB PNG.
• Grid: It is exactly a 32×32 grid scaled up 16×, with no pixel out of line with its grid cell. So the edges are hard and there's no anti-aliasing, gradient or blur.
• Palette: It uses exactly 8 colours, all from the allowed list: background #0c1610, black, lilac, navy, steel, bubblegum, phosphor and moss. There are no green specks in the background, which the rules allow but don't require.
• Traits, by eye and from pixel values:
  • Bunny: a lilac (#b39cff) bunny with pink inner ears.
  • Glow eyes: large phosphor (#39ff6a) eyes.
  • Jacket: navy with steel lapels and zip over a moss shirt.
  • Character: one front-facing bust, centred, shoulders reaching the bottom edge.
  • No text: no text, watermark or border.

Judgement calls

• Antenna (the weakest trait): It has a 2×2 phosphor tip in a black outline (rows 5–8) and a short steel stalk on a steel headband (rows 10–12). One background row (row 9) separates them, so the tip looks like it floats. I count the trait as present but scored brief 7/10 because of this.
• Glow eyes: They are flat bright green with no halo. I counted them as glowing.
• Originality 6/10: The design is clean but conventional for the set.
• Other scores: silhouette 8/10, style 9/10.

Open question: A stricter reviewer could reject the image if they treat the floating antenna tip as "not clearly present". That is the only borderline call. I didn't add a README because the task said to write only the JSON.