12f716ddf19d15519999a06e84b6d210895f4608
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 gbanyan
|
12f716ddf1 |
Paper A v3.5: resolve codex round-4 residual issues
Fully addresses the partial-resolution / unfixed items from codex
gpt-5.4 round-4 review (codex_review_gpt54_v3_4.md):
Critical
- Table XI z/p columns now reproduce from displayed counts. Earlier
table had 1-4-unit transcription errors in k values and a fabricated
cos > 0.9407 calibration row; both fixed by rerunning Script 24
with cos = 0.9407 added to COS_RULES and copying exact values from
the JSON output.
- Section III-L classifier now defined entirely in terms of the
independent-minimum dHash statistic that the deployed code (Scripts
21, 23, 24) actually uses; the legacy "cosine-conditional dHash"
language is removed. Tables IX, XI, XII, XVI are now arithmetically
consistent with the III-L classifier definition.
- "0.95 not calibrated to Firm A" inconsistency reconciled: Section
III-H now correctly says 0.95 is the whole-sample Firm A P95 of the
per-signature cosine distribution, matching III-L and IV-F.
Major
- Abstract trimmed to 246 words (from 367) to meet IEEE Access 250-word
limit. Removed "we break the circularity" overclaim; replaced with
"report capture rates on both folds with Wilson 95% intervals to
make fold-level variance visible".
- Conclusion mirrors the Abstract reframe: 70/30 split documents
within-firm sampling variance, not external generalization.
- Introduction no longer promises precision / F1 / EER metrics that
Methods/Results don't deliver; replaced with anchor-based capture /
FAR + Wilson CI language.
- Section III-G within-auditor-year empirical-check wording corrected:
intra-report consistency (IV-H.3) is a different test (two co-signers
on the same report, firm-level homogeneity) and is not a within-CPA
year-level mixing check; the assumption is maintained as a bounded
identification convention.
- Section III-H "two analyses fully threshold-free" corrected to "only
the partner-level ranking is threshold-free"; longitudinal-stability
uses 0.95 cutoff, intra-report uses the operational classifier.
Minor
- Impact Statement removed from export_v3.py SECTIONS list (IEEE Access
Regular Papers do not have a standalone Impact Statement). The file
itself is retained as an archived non-paper note for cover-letter /
grant-report reuse, with a clear archive header.
- All 7 previously unused references ([27] dHash, [31][32] partner-
signature mandates, [33] Taiwan partner rotation, [34] YOLO original,
[35] VLM survey, [36] Mann-Whitney) are now cited in-text:
[27] in Methodology III-E (dHash definition)
[31][32][33] in Introduction (audit-quality regulation context)
[34][35] in Methodology III-C/III-D
[36] in Results IV-C (Mann-Whitney result)
Updated Script 24 to include cos = 0.9407 in COS_RULES so Table XI's
calibration-fold P5 row is computed from the same data file as the
other rows.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
gbanyan
|
0ff1845b22 |
Paper A v3.4: resolve codex round-3 major-revision blockers
Three blockers from codex gpt-5.4 round-3 review (codex_review_gpt54_v3_3.md):
B1 Classifier vs three-method threshold mismatch
- Methodology III-L rewritten to make explicit that the per-signature
classifier and the accountant-level three-method convergence operate
at different units (signature vs accountant) and are complementary
rather than substitutable.
- Add Results IV-G.3 + Table XII operational-threshold sensitivity:
cos>0.95 vs cos>0.945 shifts dual-rule capture by 1.19 pp on whole
Firm A; ~5% of signatures flip at the Uncertain/Moderate boundary.
B2 Held-out validation false "within Wilson CI" claim
- Script 24 recomputes both calibration-fold and held-out-fold rates
with Wilson 95% CIs and a two-proportion z-test on each rule.
- Table XI replaced with the proper fold-vs-fold comparison; prose
in Results IV-G.2 and Discussion V-C corrected: extreme rules agree
across folds (p>0.7); operational rules in the 85-95% band differ
by 1-5 pp due to within-Firm-A heterogeneity (random 30% sample
contained more high-replication C1 accountants), not generalization
failure.
B3 Interview evidence reframed as practitioner knowledge
- The Firm A "interviews" referenced throughout v3.3 are private,
informal professional conversations, not structured research
interviews. Reframed accordingly: all "interview*" references in
abstract / intro / methodology / results / discussion / conclusion
are replaced with "domain knowledge / industry-practice knowledge".
- This avoids overclaiming methodological formality and removes the
human-subjects research framing that triggered the ethics-statement
requirement.
- Section III-H four-pillar Firm A validation now stands on visual
inspection, signature-level statistics, accountant-level GMM, and
the three Section IV-H analyses, with practitioner knowledge as
background context only.
- New Section III-M ("Data Source and Firm Anonymization") covers
MOPS public-data provenance, Firm A/B/C/D pseudonymization, and
conflict-of-interest declaration.
Add signature_analysis/24_validation_recalibration.py for the recomputed
calib-vs-held-out z-tests and the classifier sensitivity analysis;
output in reports/validation_recalibration/.
Pending (not in this commit): abstract length (368 -> 250 words),
Impact Statement removal, BD/McCrary sensitivity reporting, full
reproducibility appendix, references cleanup.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|