pdf_signature_extraction

104 Commits 4 Branches 1 Tag

2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
gbanyanandClaude Opus 4.8	6781c00d5b	Paper A v13 rev9.2: firm-key unification + canonical-number reconciliation (rev9.1 review R1-R6) Resolve the Firm C/D "two-snapshot" inconsistency from the co-author rev9.1 review. Root cause was NOT stale data but two live firm-assignment keys (assigned_accountant-> registry firm vs the excel_firm column) used inconsistently across tables; standardize on the registry key, which the headline Table IV/II-b already use. Sole difference = 379 signatures with excel_firm=C but registry firm=D; A and B identical under both keys. Numbers (all DB-verified, registry key, n=150,442): - Table II-c Firm C/D recomputed (was mixing keys within firm C across periods, which manufactured the spurious "third value" 38,934); now C 22,449+16,164=38,613, D 9,945+7,188=17,133, all four firms reconcile. - Table VI C/D counts + S III-B prose + Fig 3/6 captions -> 150,442. - S V-B HC-rate text -> Firm C 21.6->26.7%, Firm D 22.0->28.0%. Note on R4: the reviewer (PDF-only) asked to change S IV-C to 26.5/28.5 to match Table II-c; DB verification showed the reverse - S IV-C's 26.7/28.0 are correct and Table II-c was the stale outlier, so II-c was aligned to S IV-C (data-correct, opposite to the literal instruction). Accountant counts (R2 reviewer "179>171 impossible" = false positive; three distinct, all-reproducible universes): Table I + S III-B -> 457 (>=2 sig, owns the 150,442 signatures); Table III documented as the 437 with >=10 signatures (K=3 GMM subset, reproduces A=82.5/B=0.0/C=1.0/D=1.9% exactly); bootstrap 179/280 unchanged (accountant_id key, correct and invariant to the A-vs-BCD contrast). R3 (corpus scope): S III-B reworded - corpus = all retrievable reports, Big-4 as the primary analysis sample (removes the "corpus = four firms" vs "non-Big-4 in robustness" contradiction); per-firm counts now explicitly labelled A/B/C/D. R5 (spelling): unify to American (artefact->artifact x11, centred->centered, behaviour->behavior, analyse(d)->analyze(d), favours->favors). R6: delete non-standard "(+)" marker in S IV-C. Figures regenerated under the registry key: make_fig3_density.py and make_fig6_sensitivity.py switched to the assigned_accountant join (fig3/fig6 n=150,442); fig4/fig5 refreshed. FE/LOYO/bootstrap re-validated exactly (ORs 0.116/0.061/0.070, LOYO 53.1-54.9pp, full 53.7pp). Add CANONICAL_NUMBERS_rev9.1.md with full provenance, the analyzable/GMM definitions, and the firm-key root cause. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01K35dXhb9XEM1mnYz6SSHpU	2026-06-30 15:19:18 +08:00
gbanyanandClaude Opus 4.8	da455791de	Paper A v13 rev8: fusion-review revision (29 items) + verified data analysis Address all 29 items from the fused reviewer report (Gemini 3.1 Pro + ChatGPT 5.5 + Opus 4.8): 3 fatal, 4 severe, arbitration A/B, 5 fusion-new, 15 minor. All new numbers computed from signature_analysis.db; nothing fabricated. Claim honesty (F1/F3/F4/F7/G3): - Retract all "139x the floor" comparisons; ICCR -> between-accountant specificity proxy throughout; state within-accountant FPR is not estimable and ICCR is not even a bound (anti-conservative direction). - Firm A reframed as quasi-positive known-positive benchmark (not blinded). - byte-identity recast as prevalence signal, not a recall/sanity check. - tunable -> single-direction conservativeness dial (no P-R frontier). New data analysis (verified, bit-reproducible via committed scripts): - F2/G1 (Sec V-B): 880-PDF imaging-pipeline audit (Table V) - plain scans 82% (2013) -> 1% (2021); producer strings name scanner hardware (Fuji Xerox D125 etc.); substrate transforms at 2020/21 = named confound. - F5 (Sec IV-C): four robustness checks - pool-size stratification, accountant-clustered bootstrap (gap 53.7pp [49.5,57.5]), firm+year FE logistic (B/C/D OR 0.06-0.12), leave-one-year-out (gap 53.1-54.9pp). - byte-identity era split: 30 scan-era (18 Firm A, pipeline-robust) vs 232 digital-era (detectability-inflated, hedged). - G5: archive-wide 888 expected chance HC flags [677,1098]. - M4: Figure 3 replaced with real 2D density (n=150,441). Structure/minor: abstract restructured (M1); operational definition (M2); interview disclaimer (M3); Threats to Validity subsection (M8); review protocol framed as design not evidence (M9); N reconciliations (M10/M11); Table II-c 2020-23 five-way (M12); Section refs, American spelling, notation table (M5/M13/M15); reference URLs verified (M14). Open (author-only): placeholders (M13), II-b/IV table merge (M15). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qn59FdF9JMyfFg3sjcUNNG	2026-06-23 14:36:51 +08:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

gbanyanandClaude Opus 4.8

6781c00d5b

Paper A v13 rev9.2: firm-key unification + canonical-number reconciliation (rev9.1 review R1-R6)

Resolve the Firm C/D "two-snapshot" inconsistency from the co-author rev9.1 review.
Root cause was NOT stale data but two live firm-assignment keys (assigned_accountant->
registry firm vs the excel_firm column) used inconsistently across tables; standardize
on the registry key, which the headline Table IV/II-b already use. Sole difference = 379
signatures with excel_firm=C but registry firm=D; A and B identical under both keys.

Numbers (all DB-verified, registry key, n=150,442):
- Table II-c Firm C/D recomputed (was mixing keys within firm C across periods, which
  manufactured the spurious "third value" 38,934); now C 22,449+16,164=38,613,
  D 9,945+7,188=17,133, all four firms reconcile.
- Table VI C/D counts + S III-B prose + Fig 3/6 captions -> 150,442.
- S V-B HC-rate text -> Firm C 21.6->26.7%, Firm D 22.0->28.0%.

Note on R4: the reviewer (PDF-only) asked to change S IV-C to 26.5/28.5 to match Table
II-c; DB verification showed the reverse - S IV-C's 26.7/28.0 are correct and Table II-c
was the stale outlier, so II-c was aligned to S IV-C (data-correct, opposite to the
literal instruction).

Accountant counts (R2 reviewer "179>171 impossible" = false positive; three distinct,
all-reproducible universes): Table I + S III-B -> 457 (>=2 sig, owns the 150,442
signatures); Table III documented as the 437 with >=10 signatures (K=3 GMM subset,
reproduces A=82.5/B=0.0/C=1.0/D=1.9% exactly); bootstrap 179/280 unchanged
(accountant_id key, correct and invariant to the A-vs-BCD contrast).

R3 (corpus scope): S III-B reworded - corpus = all retrievable reports, Big-4 as the
primary analysis sample (removes the "corpus = four firms" vs "non-Big-4 in robustness"
contradiction); per-firm counts now explicitly labelled A/B/C/D.
R5 (spelling): unify to American (artefact->artifact x11, centred->centered,
behaviour->behavior, analyse(d)->analyze(d), favours->favors).
R6: delete non-standard "(+)" marker in S IV-C.

Figures regenerated under the registry key: make_fig3_density.py and
make_fig6_sensitivity.py switched to the assigned_accountant join (fig3/fig6 n=150,442);
fig4/fig5 refreshed. FE/LOYO/bootstrap re-validated exactly (ORs 0.116/0.061/0.070,
LOYO 53.1-54.9pp, full 53.7pp).

Add CANONICAL_NUMBERS_rev9.1.md with full provenance, the analyzable/GMM definitions,
and the firm-key root cause.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01K35dXhb9XEM1mnYz6SSHpU

2026-06-30 15:19:18 +08:00

gbanyanandClaude Opus 4.8

da455791de

Paper A v13 rev8: fusion-review revision (29 items) + verified data analysis

Address all 29 items from the fused reviewer report (Gemini 3.1 Pro +
ChatGPT 5.5 + Opus 4.8): 3 fatal, 4 severe, arbitration A/B, 5 fusion-new,
15 minor. All new numbers computed from signature_analysis.db; nothing
fabricated.

Claim honesty (F1/F3/F4/F7/G3):
- Retract all "139x the floor" comparisons; ICCR -> between-accountant
  specificity proxy throughout; state within-accountant FPR is not
  estimable and ICCR is not even a bound (anti-conservative direction).
- Firm A reframed as quasi-positive known-positive benchmark (not blinded).
- byte-identity recast as prevalence signal, not a recall/sanity check.
- tunable -> single-direction conservativeness dial (no P-R frontier).

New data analysis (verified, bit-reproducible via committed scripts):
- F2/G1 (Sec V-B): 880-PDF imaging-pipeline audit (Table V) - plain scans
  82% (2013) -> 1% (2021); producer strings name scanner hardware
  (Fuji Xerox D125 etc.); substrate transforms at 2020/21 = named confound.
- F5 (Sec IV-C): four robustness checks - pool-size stratification,
  accountant-clustered bootstrap (gap 53.7pp [49.5,57.5]), firm+year FE
  logistic (B/C/D OR 0.06-0.12), leave-one-year-out (gap 53.1-54.9pp).
- byte-identity era split: 30 scan-era (18 Firm A, pipeline-robust) vs
  232 digital-era (detectability-inflated, hedged).
- G5: archive-wide 888 expected chance HC flags [677,1098].
- M4: Figure 3 replaced with real 2D density (n=150,441).

Structure/minor: abstract restructured (M1); operational definition (M2);
interview disclaimer (M3); Threats to Validity subsection (M8); review
protocol framed as design not evidence (M9); N reconciliations (M10/M11);
Table II-c 2020-23 five-way (M12); Section refs, American spelling,
notation table (M5/M13/M15); reference URLs verified (M14).

Open (author-only): placeholders (M13), II-b/IV table merge (M15).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qn59FdF9JMyfFg3sjcUNNG

2026-06-23 14:36:51 +08:00