# Fourth-Round Review of Paper A v3.4

**Overall Verdict: Major Revision**

v3.4 is materially better than v3.3. The ethics/interview blocker is genuinely fixed, the classifier-versus-accountant-threshold distinction is much clearer in the prose, Table XII now exists, and the held-out-validation story has been conceptually corrected from the false "within Wilson CI" claim to the right calibration-fold-versus-held-out comparison. I still do not recommend submission as-is, however, because two core problems remain. First, the newly added sensitivity and intra-report analyses do not appear to evaluate the classifier that Section III-L now defines: the paper says the operational five-way classifier uses *cosine-conditional* dHash cutoffs, but the new scripts use `min_dhash_independent` instead. Second, the replacement Table XI has z/p columns that do not consistently match its own reported counts under the script's published two-proportion formula. Those are fixable, but they keep the manuscript in major-revision territory.

**1. v3.3 Blocker Resolution Audit**

| Blocker | Status | Audit |
|---|---|---|
| B1. Classifier vs three-method convergence misalignment | `PARTIALLY-RESOLVED` | The prose repair is real. Section III-L now explicitly distinguishes the signature-level operational classifier from the accountant-level convergent reference band at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:251) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:275), and Section IV-G.3 is added as a sensitivity check at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:239) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:262). The remaining problem is that III-L defines the classifier's dHash cutoffs as *cosine-conditional* at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:269) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:271), but the new sensitivity script loads only `s.min_dhash_independent` at [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:83) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:90) and then claims to "Replicate Section III-L" at [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:204) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:241). So the conceptual alignment is improved, but the new empirical support is still not aligned to the declared classifier. |
| B2. Held-out validation false within-Wilson-CI claim | `PARTIALLY-RESOLVED` | The false claim itself is removed. Section IV-G.2 now correctly says the calibration fold, not the whole sample, is the right comparison target at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:230) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:237), and Discussion mirrors that at [paper_a_discussion_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_discussion_v3.md:44). The new script also implements the two-proportion z-test explicitly at [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:66) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:80) and [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:175) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:202). However, several Table XI z/p entries do not match the displayed `k/n` counts under that formula: the `cosine > 0.837` row at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:217) implies about `z = +0.41, p = 0.683`, not `+0.31 / 0.756`; the `cosine > 0.9407` row at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:220) implies about `z = -3.19, p = 0.0014`, not `-2.83 / 0.005`; and the `dHash_indep <= 15` row at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:224) implies about `z = -0.43, p = 0.670`, not `-0.31 / 0.754`. The conceptual blocker is fixed; the replacement inferential table still needs numeric cleanup. |
| B3. Interview evidence lacks ethics statement | `RESOLVED` | This blocker is fixed. The manuscript now consistently reframes the contextual claim as practitioner / industry-practice knowledge rather than as research interviews; see [paper_a_introduction_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_introduction_v3.md:50) through [paper_a_introduction_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_introduction_v3.md:54), [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:139) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:140), and [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:280) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:289). I also ran a grep across the nine v3 manuscript files and found no surviving `interview`, `IRB`, or `ethics` strings. The evidentiary burden now sits on paper-internal analyses rather than on undeclared human-subject evidence. |

**2. v3.3 Major-Issues Follow-up**

| Prior major issue | Status | v3.4 audit |
|---|---|---|
| dHash classifier ambiguity | `UNFIXED` | III-L now says the classifier uses *cosine-conditional* dHash thresholds at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:269) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:271), but the Results still report only `dHash_indep` capture rules at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:165) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:168) and [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:221) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:225), despite the promise at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:271) that both statistics would be reported. The new scripts for Table XII and Table XVI also use `min_dhash_independent`, not cosine-conditional dHash, at [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:83) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:90) and [23_intra_report_consistency.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/23_intra_report_consistency.py:90) through [23_intra_report_consistency.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/23_intra_report_consistency.py:92). |
| 70/30 split overstatement | `PARTIALLY-FIXED` | The paper is now more candid that the operational classifier still inherits whole-sample thresholds at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:272) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:273), and IV-G.2 properly frames the fold comparison at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:230) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:237). But the Abstract still says "we break the circularity" at [paper_a_abstract_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_abstract_v3.md:12), and the Conclusion repeats that framing at [paper_a_conclusion_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_conclusion_v3.md:20), which overstates what the 70/30 split accomplishes for the actual deployed classifier. |
| Validation-metric story | `PARTIALLY-FIXED` | Methods and Results are substantially improved: precision and `F1` are now explicitly rejected as meaningless here at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:244) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:246) and [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:186) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:203). But the Introduction still promises validation with "precision, recall, F1, and equal-error-rate" at [paper_a_introduction_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_introduction_v3.md:28), and the Impact Statement still overstates binary discrimination at [paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md:8). |
| Within-auditor-year empirical-check confusion | `UNFIXED` | Section III-G still says the intra-report analysis provides an empirical check on the within-auditor-year no-mixing assumption at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:123) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:127). But Section IV-H.3 still measures agreement between the two different signers on the same report at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:343) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:367). That is a cross-partner same-report test, not a same-CPA within-year mixing test. |
| BD/McCrary rigor | `UNFIXED` | The Methods still mention KDE bandwidth sensitivity at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:173) and define a fixed-bin BD/McCrary procedure at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:177) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:183), but the Results still give only narrative transition statements at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:80) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:83) and [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:126) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:149), with no alternate-bin analysis, Z-statistics table, p-values, or McCrary-style estimator output. |
| Reproducibility gaps | `PARTIALLY-FIXED` | There is some improvement at the code level: the new recalibration script exposes the seed and test formulae at [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:46), [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:128) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:136), and [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:175) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:202). But from the paper alone the work is still not reproducible: the exact VLM prompt and parse rule remain absent at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:44) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:49), HSV thresholds remain absent at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:74), visual-inspection sample size/protocol remain absent at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:144) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:145), and mixture initialization / stopping / boundary handling remain under-specified at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:187) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:195) and [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:221). |
| Section III-H / IV-F reconciliation | `FIXED` | The manuscript now clearly says the 92.5% Firm A figure is a within-sample consistency check, not the independent validation pillar, at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:155) and [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:174) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:176). That specific circularity / role-confusion problem is repaired. |
| "Fixed 0.95 not calibrated to Firm A" inconsistency | `UNFIXED` | III-H still says the fixed `0.95` cutoff "is not calibrated to Firm A" at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:151), but III-L says `0.95` is the whole-sample Firm A P95 heuristic at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:252) and [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:272), and IV-F says the same at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:174) and [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:241). This contradiction remains. |

**3. v3.3 Minor-Issues Follow-up**

| Prior minor issue | Status | v3.4 audit |
|---|---|---|
| Table XII numbering | `FIXED` | Table XII now exists at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:246) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:254), and the numbering now runs XI-XVIII without the previous jump. |
| `dHash_indep <= 5 (calib-fold median-adjacent)` label | `UNFIXED` | The unclear label remains at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:165), even though the same table family now explicitly reports the calibration-fold independent-minimum median as `2` at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:227). Calling `5` "median-adjacent" is still opaque. |
| References [27], [31]-[36] cleanup | `UNFIXED` | These references remain present at [paper_a_references_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_references_v3.md:57) through [paper_a_references_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_references_v3.md:75), but a citation sweep across the nine manuscript files found no in-text uses of `[27]` or `[31]`-`[36]`. The Mann-Whitney test is still reported at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:50) without citing `[36]`. I also do not see uses of `[34]` or `[35]` in the reviewed manuscript text. |

**4. New Findings in v3.4**

**Blockers**

- The new IV-G.3 sensitivity evidence does not appear to use the classifier that III-L now defines. III-L says the operational categories use cosine-conditional dHash cutoffs at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:269) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:271), and IV-G.3 presents itself as a sensitivity test of that classifier at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:239) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:262). But [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:83) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:90) load only `min_dhash_independent`, and the "Replicate Section III-L" classifier at [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:212) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:241) uses that statistic directly. This is currently the most important unresolved issue because the newly added evidence that is meant to support B1 is not evaluating the paper's stated classifier.

**Major Issues**

- Table XI's z/p columns are not consistently arithmetically compatible with the published counts. The formula in [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:66) through [24_validation_recalibration.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py:80) is straightforward, but several rows in [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:217) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:224) do not match their own `k/n` inputs. The qualitative interpretation survives, but a statistical table that does not reproduce from its displayed counts is not submission-ready.

- Table XVI is affected by the same classifier-definition problem as Table XII. The paper says IV-H.3 uses the "dual-descriptor rules of Section III-L" at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:347), but [23_intra_report_consistency.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/23_intra_report_consistency.py:37) through [23_intra_report_consistency.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/23_intra_report_consistency.py:53) and [23_intra_report_consistency.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/23_intra_report_consistency.py:90) through [23_intra_report_consistency.py](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/signature_analysis/23_intra_report_consistency.py:92) classify with `min_dhash_independent`. So the new "fourth pillar" consistency check is not actually tied to the classifier as specified in III-L.

- The four-pillar Firm A validation is ethically cleaner, but not stronger in evidentiary reporting than v3.3. It is stronger on internal consistency because practitioner knowledge is now background-only at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:139) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:140), and the paper states that the evidence comes from the manuscript's own analyses at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:142) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:155). But it is not stronger on empirical documentation because the visual-inspection pillar still has no sample size, randomization rule, rater count, or decision protocol at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:144) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:145). My read is: ethically stronger, scientifically cleaner, but only roughly equal in evidentiary strength unless the visual-inspection protocol is documented.

**Minor Issues**

- III-H says "Two of them are fully threshold-free" at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:150), but item (a) immediately uses a fixed `0.95` cutoff at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:151). The Results intro to Section IV-H is more accurate at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:270) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:274). This should be harmonized.

- The Introduction still contains an obsolete metric promise at [paper_a_introduction_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_introduction_v3.md:28), and the Impact Statement still reads too strongly for a five-way classifier with no full labeled test set at [paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md:8). These are not new conceptual flaws, but they are still visible in the current version.

**5. IEEE Access Fit Check**

- **Scope:** Yes. The topic is a plausible IEEE Access Regular Paper fit as a methods paper spanning document forensics, computer vision, and audit/regulatory applications.

- **Abstract length:** Not compliant yet. A local plain-word count of [paper_a_abstract_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_abstract_v3.md:5) through [paper_a_abstract_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_abstract_v3.md:14) gives about **367 words**. The IEEE Author Center guidance says the abstract should be a single paragraph of up to 250 words. The current abstract is also dense with abbreviations / symbols (`KDE`, `EM`, `BIC`, `GMM`, `~`, `approx`) that IEEE generally prefers authors to avoid in abstracts.

- **Impact Statement section:** The manuscript still includes a standalone Impact Statement at [paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md:1) through [paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md:9). **Inference from official IEEE Access / IEEE Author Center sources:** I do not see a Regular Paper requirement for a standalone `Impact Statement` section. Unless an editor specifically requested it, I would remove it or fold its content into the abstract / conclusion / cover letter.

- **Formatting:** I cannot verify final IEEE template conformance from the markdown section files alone. Official IEEE Access guidance requires the journal template and submission of both source and PDF; that should be checked at the generated DOCX / PDF stage, not from these source snippets.

- **Review model / anonymization:** IEEE Access uses **single-anonymized** review. The current pseudonymization of firms is therefore a confidentiality choice, not a review-blinding requirement. Within the nine reviewed section files I do not see author or institution metadata.

- **Official sources checked:**  
  - IEEE Access submission guidelines: https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/authors/submission-guidelines/  
  - IEEE Author Center article-structure guidance: https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/create-your-ieee-journal-article/create-the-text-of-your-article/structure-your-article/  
  - IEEE Access reviewer guidelines / reviewer info: https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines/

**6. Statistical Rigor Audit**

- The high-level statistical story is cleaner than in v3.3. The paper now explicitly separates the primary accountant-level 1D convergence (`0.973 / 0.979 / 0.976`) from the secondary 2D-GMM marginal (`0.945`) at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:126) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:149), and III-L no longer pretends those accountant-level thresholds are themselves the deployed classifier at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:274).

- The B2 statistical interpretation is substantially improved: IV-G.2 now frames fold differences as heterogeneity rather than as failed generalization at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:233) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:237), and Discussion repeats that narrower reading at [paper_a_discussion_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_discussion_v3.md:44) through [paper_a_discussion_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_discussion_v3.md:45).

- The main remaining statistical weakness is now more specific: the paper's new classifier definition and the paper's new sensitivity evidence are not using the same dHash statistic. That is a model-definition problem, not just a wording problem.

- BD/McCrary remains the least rigorous component. The paper's qualitative interpretation is plausible, but the reporting is still too thin for a method presented as a co-equal thresholding component.

- The anchor-based validation is better framed than before. The manuscript now correctly treats the byte-identical positives as a conservative subset and no longer uses precision / `F1` in the main validation table at [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:184) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:205).

**7. Anonymization Check**

- Within the nine reviewed v3 manuscript files, I do not see any explicit real firm names or auditor names. The paper consistently uses `Firm A/B/C/D`; see [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:287) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:289) and [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:353) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:357).

- The new III-M residual-identifiability disclosure at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:287) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:288) is appropriate. Knowledgeable local readers may still infer Firm A, but the paper now states that risk explicitly.

**8. Numerical Consistency**

- Most of the large headline counts still reconcile across sections: `90,282` reports, `182,328` signatures, `758` CPAs, and the Firm A `171 + 9` accountant split remain internally consistent across [paper_a_abstract_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_abstract_v3.md:11) through [paper_a_abstract_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_abstract_v3.md:13), [paper_a_introduction_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_introduction_v3.md:62) through [paper_a_introduction_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_introduction_v3.md:63), [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:121) through [paper_a_results_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_results_v3.md:127), and [paper_a_conclusion_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_conclusion_v3.md:19) through [paper_a_conclusion_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_conclusion_v3.md:21).

- Table XII arithmetic is internally consistent: both columns sum to `168,740`, and the listed percentages match the counts. Table XVI and Table XVII arithmetic also reconcile. The new numbering XI-XVIII is coherent.

- The important remaining numerical inconsistency is Table XI's inferential columns, not its raw counts or percentages.

**9. Reproducibility**

- The paper is still **not reproducible from the manuscript alone**.

- Missing or under-specified items that should be added before submission:
  - Exact VLM prompt, parse rule, and failure-handling for page selection at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:44) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:49).
  - HSV thresholds for red-stamp removal at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:74).
  - Random seeds / sampling protocol for the 500-page annotation set, the 50,000 inter-CPA negatives, the 30-signature sanity sample, and the Firm A 70/30 split at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:59), [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:232), [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:237) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:239), and [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:247).
  - Visual-inspection sample size, selection rule, and decision protocol at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:144) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:145).
  - EM / mixture initialization, stopping criteria, boundary clipping for the logit transform, and software versions for the mixture fits at [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:187) through [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:195) and [paper_a_methodology_v3.md](/Volumes/NV2/pdf_recognize/paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md:221).

- The new scripts help the audit, but they also expose that the Results tables are currently not perfectly aligned to the Methods classifier definition. So reproducibility is not only incomplete; it is presently inconsistent in one key place.

**Bottom Line**

v3.4 clears the ethics/interview blocker and substantially improves the classifier-threshold narrative. It is much closer to a submittable paper than v3.3. But I would still require one more round before IEEE Access submission: (1) make Section III-L, Table XII, Table XVI, and the supporting scripts use the same dHash statistic, or explicitly redefine the classifier around `dHash_indep`; (2) recompute and correct the Table XI z/p columns from the displayed counts; (3) remove the remaining overstatements about what the 70/30 split and the validation metrics establish; and (4) cut the abstract to <= 250 words while cleaning the non-standard Impact Statement. If those are repaired cleanly, the paper should move into minor-revision territory.
