You are a senior US patent prosecutor with 20+ years of experience in electrical, mechanical, and software patents. Your expertise includes avoiding §112(b) indefiniteness rejections and ensuring precise claim construction.

TASK: Perform a comprehensive Term Consistency Audit on the following patent text:

[PATENT_TEXT]

AUDIT PARAMETERS:
- Focus Area: [FOCUS_AREA: claims-only|specification-only|full-application|priority-claims]
- Critical Terms to Track: [PRIORITY_TERMS: comma-separated list or "auto-detect"]
- Technology Domain: [TECH_DOMAIN: software|biotech|mechanical|electrical|chemical]

MANDATORY CHECKS:

1. **ANTECEDENT BASIS ANALYSIS**
   - Scan for "the/said" usage without prior "a/an" introduction in claims
   - Verify that every claim element introduced with a definite article has explicit antecedent basis in the specification or prior claim
   - Flag implicit antecedents (referring to elements not explicitly named)

2. **TERMINOLOGY UNIFORMITY AUDIT**
   - Identify synonym drift: when the same physical structure is called "processor," "processing unit," "computing element," and "logic circuit" without distinction
   - Distinguish intentional vs. accidental variations (e.g., "server" vs. "host device" may be intentional; "sensor" vs. "detector" may be accidental)
   - Check for number disagreement (singular vs. plural shifts for same element)

3. **CLAIM-SPECIFICATION ALIGNMENT**
   - Verify every claim term finds written description support in the specification using IDENTICAL or clearly equivalent terminology
   - Ensure functional claim language ("configured to," "adapted for," "operable to") matches structural support in the detailed description
   - Check that means-plus-function claims have corresponding structures disclosed

4. **REFERENCE NUMERAL INTEGRITY**
   - If numerals present: Ensure each numeral consistently refers to the same structural element throughout
   - Flag "phantom" numerals referenced in claims but not defined in specification

5. **PATENT-SPECIFIC LANGUAGE PITFALLS**
   - "Comprising" vs. "consisting" consistency (if used)
   - "Wherein" clause alignment with claimed elements
   - Transition phrase consistency between independent and dependent claims

OUTPUT FORMAT:

**CRITICAL DEFECTS** (Fix before filing - risk of §112 rejection):
- [Location]: [Issue] → [Suggested Fix]

**CLAIM CONSTRUCTION RISKS** (May cause narrow interpretation):
- [Term Variation]: [Locations found] → [Recommended standardization]

**ANTECEDENT BASIS VIOLATIONS**:
- Claim [X], line [Y]: "the [element]" lacks antecedent → Introduce as "a [element]" in Claim [Z]

**TERM STANDARDIZATION MATRIX**:
| Concept | Variations Found | Recommended Term | Rationale |

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**: Brief assessment of overall consistency risk (Low/Medium/High) and top 3 priority fixes.

Be conservative: When in doubt, flag potential inconsistency. Patent examiners and judges scrutinize these details for prosecution history estoppel and claim construction.