Phase 6 round-2 reviewer revisions: §III-H.1 promotion + framing alignment

Structural:
- Promote operational classifier definition from §III-L.0 to new §III-H.1, so
  the reader meets the five-way HC/MC/HSC/UN/LH rule before the §III-I/J/K
  diagnostic chain instead of ~130 lines after. §III-L renamed to
  "Anchor-Based Threshold Calibration"; §III-L.0 retains only calibration
  methodology, three units of analysis, any-pair semantics, and the FAR
  terminological note. §III-L.7 deleted (redundant with §III-J).
- Reorganise §V-H Limitations into Primary / Secondary / Documented features /
  Engineering groupings (was a flat 14-item list).
- Reframe §III-M from "ten-tool unsupervised-validation collection" to
  "each diagnostic addresses one specific unsupervised failure mode";
  rename "What v4.0 does/does not claim" → "Limits / Scope of the present
  analysis"; retitle Table XXVII.

Framing alignment (cross-section):
- Strip all v3.x / v4.0 / v3.20 / v4-new / inherited lineage labels from
  rendered text (Abstract, Intro, §II, §III, §IV, §V, §VI, Appendix, Impact).
- Replace "Paper A" rule references with "deployed" rule references.
- Soften "validation" to "characterise" / "check" / "screening label" /
  "consistency check" / "support"; "verdict" → "screening label".
- Remove codex-verified spike claims (non-Big-4 jittered dHash, Big-4 pooled
  cosine after firm-mean centring). Only formally scripted evidence
  (Scripts 39b–39e) retained; non-Big-4 evidence framed as corroborating
  raw-axis cosine, not as calibration evidence.
- Strip script-provenance parentheticals from Introduction; defer Script 39c
  internal references and similar to Methodology / Appendix.

Numerical / table fixes:
- §III-C document-count arithmetic: 12 corrupted → 13 corrupted/unreadable,
  verified against sqlite DB and total-pdf/ folder counts (90,282 - 4,198
  no-sig - 13 corrupted = 86,071 → 85,042 with detections → 182,328 sigs →
  168,755 CPA-matched). Table I shows VLM-positive (86,084) and
  processed-for-extraction (86,071) as separate rows.
- Wilson 95% CIs added for joint-rule ICCR rows in Table XXI / methodology
  table ([0.00011, 0.00018] and [0.00008, 0.00014]).
- Unit error fixed: 0.3856 pp / 0.4431 pp → 0.3856 (38.6 pp) / 0.4431 (44.3 pp).

Smaller revisions:
- Pipeline framing: "detecting" → "screening" in Abstract / Intro / Conclusion
  for consistency with the unsupervised-screening positioning.
- "hard ground-truth subset" → "conservative hard-positive subset" throughout.
- §III-F SSIM / pixel-comparison rebuttal compressed from ~15 lines to 4;
  design-level argument deferred to supplementary materials.
- "stakeholders can adopt / can derive thresholds" → "alternative operating
  points can be characterised by inverting" (less prescriptive).
- "the same mechanism extending in milder form to Firms B/C/D" → "similar,
  milder production-related reuse patterns at Firms B/C/D" (mechanism claim
  softened).
- Appendix A "non-hand-signed mode" / "two-mechanism mixture" lineage language
  aligned with v4 framing.

Appendix B:
- Rebuilt as a redirect-only stub. The HTML-commented obsolete table mapping
  (Table IX–XVIII labels with FAR / capture-rate / validation language) is
  removed; replaced with a short paragraph pointing to supplementary
  materials for full table-to-script provenance.

Cross-references:
- All §III-L references for the rule definition retargeted to §III-H.1;
  references for calibration still point to §III-L.
- §III-H references for byte-level Firm A evidence / non-Big-4 reverse anchor
  retargeted to §III-H.2.

Artefacts:
- Combined manuscript regenerated: paper_a_v4_combined.md, 1314 lines
  (was 1346 pre-review).
- Two review handoff documents added:
  paper/review_handoff_abstract_intro_20260515.md
  paper/review_handoff_body_20260515.md

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

paper/paper_a_impact_statement_v3.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ ARCHIVED. Not part of the IEEE Access submission.
 IEEE Access Regular Papers do not include a separate Impact Statement
 section. The text below is retained for possible reuse in a cover
 letter, grant report, or non-IEEE venue. It is excluded from the
-assembled paper by export_v3.py.
+assembled paper by the manuscript export script.
 
 If reused, note that the wording "distinguishes genuinely hand-signed
 signatures from reproduced ones" overstates what a five-way confidence
@@ -17,5 +17,5 @@ external use.
 Auditor signatures on financial reports are a key safeguard of corporate accountability.
 When the signature on an audit report is produced by reproducing a stored image instead of by the partner's own hand---whether through an administrative stamping workflow or a firm-level electronic signing system---this safeguard is weakened, yet detecting the practice through manual inspection is infeasible at the scale of modern financial markets.
 We developed a pipeline that automatically extracts and analyzes signatures from over 90,000 audit reports spanning a decade of filings by publicly listed companies in Taiwan.
-Combining deep-learning visual features with perceptual hashing and two methodologically distinct threshold estimators (plus a density-smoothness diagnostic), the system stratifies signatures into a five-way confidence-graded classification and quantifies how the practice varies across firms and over time.
-After further validation, the technology could support financial regulators in screening signature authenticity at national scale.
+Combining deep-learning visual features with perceptual hashing, distributional diagnostics, and anchor-based inter-CPA coincidence-rate calibration, the system stratifies signatures into a five-way confidence-graded classification and quantifies how the practice varies across firms and over time.
+With a future labelled evaluation set, the technology could support financial regulators in screening candidate non-hand-signed signatures at national scale.