gbanyan/pdf_signature_extraction
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
42 Commits 4 Branches 1 Tag
c0ed9aa5dc9b0cf3039117480e73b2635d93537f
Commit Graph

2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
gbanyan 623eb4cd4b Paper A v3.19.1: address codex partner-redpen audit residual ("upper bound" wording) 
Codex GPT-5.5 cross-verified the Gemini partner red-pen audit
(paper/codex_partner_redpen_audit_v3_19_0.md) and downgraded item (j) --
the BIC strict-3-component upper-bound framing -- from RESOLVED to
IMPROVED, because the "upper bound" wording the partner originally
red-circled in v3.17 still survived in two methodology sentences and one
Table VI row label, even though Section IV-D.3 had been retitled
"A Forced Fit" in v3.18.

This commit closes that residual:

- Methodology III-I.2: "the 2-component crossing should be treated as
  an upper bound rather than a definitive cut" -> "we report the
  resulting crossing only as a forced-fit descriptive reference and do
  not use it as an operational threshold".
- Methodology III-I.4: "should be read as an upper bound rather than a
  definitive cut" -> "reported only as a descriptive reference rather
  than as an operational threshold".
- Table VI row "0.973 (signature-level Beta/KDE upper bound)" relabelled
  to "0.973 (signature-level Beta/KDE forced-fit reference)" to match
  the IV-D.3 "Forced Fit" framing.
- reference_verification_v3.md header updated so the [5] entry reads as
  an audit trail of a fix already applied (v3.18 reference list reflects
  every correction) rather than as an active major problem.
- Rebuild Paper_A_IEEE_Access_Draft_v3.docx.

Also commits the codex partner-redpen audit artifact so the disagreement
trail with Gemini is preserved.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-04-27 23:05:39 +08:00
gbanyan 16e90bab20 Paper A v3.18: remove accountant-level + replication-dominated calibration + Gemini 2.5 Pro review minor fixes 
Major changes (per partner red-pen + user decision):
- Delete entire accountant-level analysis (III.J, IV.E, Tables VI/VII/VIII,
  Fig 4) -- cross-year pooling assumption unjustified, removes the implicit
  "habitually stamps = always stamps" reading.
- Renumber sections III.J/K/L (was K/L/M) and IV.E/F/G/H/I (was F/G/H/I/J).
- Title: "Three-Method Convergent Thresholding" -> "Replication-Dominated
  Calibration" (the three diagnostics do NOT converge at signature level).
- Operational cosine cut anchored on whole-sample Firm A P7.5 (cos > 0.95).
- Three statistical diagnostics (Hartigan/Beta/BD-McCrary) reframed as
  descriptive characterisation, not threshold estimators.
- Firm A replication-dominated framing: 3 evidence strands -> 2.
- Discussion limitation list: drop accountant-level cross-year pooling and
  BD/McCrary diagnostic; add auditor-year longitudinal tracking as future work.
- Tone-shift: "we do not claim / do not derive" -> "we find / motivates".

Reference verification (independent web-search audit of all 41 refs):
- Fix [5] author hallucination: Hadjadj et al. -> Kao & Wen (real authors of
  Appl. Sci. 10:11:3716; report at paper/reference_verification_v3.md).
- Polish [16] [21] [22] [25] (year/volume/page-range/model-name).

Gemini 2.5 Pro peer review (Minor Revision verdict, A-F all positive):
- Neutralize script-path references in tables/appendix -> "supplementary
  materials".
- Move conflict-of-interest declaration from III-L to new Declarations
  section before References (paper_a_declarations_v3.md).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-04-27 17:43:09 +08:00