Paper A v3.13: resolve Opus 4.7 round-12 + codex gpt-5.5 round-13 findings

Opus 4.7 max-effort round-12 on v3.12 found 1 MAJOR + 7 MINOR residues;
codex gpt-5.5 xhigh round-13 cross-verified 11/11 RESOLVED and caught
one additional cosine-P95 ambiguity Opus missed (methodology L255).
Total 12 text-only edits across 5 files.

MAJOR M1 - Cosine P95→P7.5 terminology residue at two sites that cite
the v3.12-corrected Section III-L but still wrote "P95" (self-
contradiction). Fix: methodology L165 and results L247 both restated
as "whole-sample Firm A P7.5 heuristic" with the 92.5%/7.5%
complement spelled out.

MINOR findings and fixes:
- m1 Big-4 scope slip: methodology III-H(b) L166 and results IV-H.2
  L311 said "every Big-4 auditor-year" but IV-H.2 ranking actually
  pools all 4,629 auditor-years across Big-4 and Non-Big-4. Both
  sites now say "every auditor-year ... across all firms."
- m2 178 vs 180 Firm A CPA breakdown: intro L54 and conclusion L21
  now add "of 180 registered CPAs; 178 after excluding two with
  disambiguation ties, Section IV-G.2" parenthetical to avoid the
  misleading 180−171=9 reading.
- m3 IV-H.1 A2 citation: results L286 now explicitly invokes the
  A2 within-year label-uniformity convention (Section III-G) when
  reading the left-tail share as a partner-level "minority of hand-
  signers."
- m4 IV-F L177 cross-ref / fold distinction: corrected Section III-H
  → Section III-L anchor, and added explicit note that the 0.95
  heuristic is a whole-sample anchor while Table XI thresholds are
  calibration-fold-derived (cosine P5 = 0.9407).
- m5 Table XVI (30,222) vs Table XVII (30,226) Firm A count gap:
  results L406 now explains the 4-report difference (XVI restricts
  to both-signers-Firm-A single-firm two-signer reports; XVII counts
  at-least-one-Firm-A signer under the 84,386-document cohort).
- m6 Methodology L156 "four independent quantitative analyses"
  actually enumerated 6 items: rephrased as "three primary
  independent quantitative analyses plus a fourth strand comprising
  three complementary checks."
- m7 Abstract "cluster into three groups" restored the "smoothly-
  mixed" qualifier to match Discussion V-B and Conclusion L17.
- Codex-caught residue at methodology L255 ("Median, 1st percentile,
  and 95th percentile of signature-level cosine/dHash distributions")
  grammatically applied P95 to cosine too. Rewrote as
  "cosine median, P1, and P5 (lower-tail) and dHash_indep median
  and P95 (upper-tail)" matching Table XI L233 exactly.

No re-computation. All tables (IV-XVIII) and Appendix A numbers
unchanged. Abstract at 249/250 words after smoothly-mixed qualifier.

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

paper/paper_a_conclusion_v3.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The substantive reading is therefore narrower than "discrete behavior": *pixel-l
 
 Fourth, we introduced a *replication-dominated* calibration methodology---explicitly distinguishing replication-dominated from replication-pure calibration anchors and validating classification against a byte-level pixel-identity anchor (310 byte-identical signatures) paired with a $\sim$50,000-pair inter-CPA negative anchor.
 To document the within-firm sampling variance of using the calibration firm as its own validation reference, we split the firm's CPAs 70/30 at the CPA level and report capture rates on both folds with Wilson 95% confidence intervals; extreme rules agree across folds while rules in the operational 85-95% capture band differ by 1-5 percentage points, reflecting within-firm heterogeneity in replication intensity rather than generalization failure.
-This framing is internally consistent with all available evidence: the visual-inspection observation of pixel-identical signatures across unrelated audit engagements for the majority of calibration-firm partners; the 92.5% / 7.5% split in signature-level cosine thresholds; and, among the 171 calibration-firm CPAs with enough signatures to enter the accountant-level GMM (of 180 in total), the 139 / 32 split between the high-replication and middle-band clusters.
+This framing is internally consistent with all available evidence: the visual-inspection observation of pixel-identical signatures across unrelated audit engagements for the majority of calibration-firm partners; the 92.5% / 7.5% split in signature-level cosine thresholds; and, among the 171 calibration-firm CPAs with enough signatures to enter the accountant-level GMM (of 180 registered CPAs; 178 after excluding two with disambiguation ties, Section IV-G.2), the 139 / 32 split between the high-replication and middle-band clusters.
 
 An ablation study comparing ResNet-50, VGG-16 and EfficientNet-B0 confirmed that ResNet-50 offers the best balance of discriminative power, classification stability, and computational efficiency for this task.