gbanyan
e429e4eed1
Hand-written minimal GSD scaffolding (PROJECT.md / REQUIREMENTS.md /
ROADMAP.md / STATE.md) without running /gsd-ingest-docs because:
* 51 pre-existing markdown files exceed the v1 50-doc cap and most
are stale (older review rounds, infrastructure notes) or already
captured in auto-memory project_signature_research.md
* Heavyweight ingest workflow not needed when project context is
already comprehensive
PROJECT.md captures the Big-4 reframe key decision and the locked
v3.x history; REQUIREMENTS.md defines REQ-001..008 for v4.0;
ROADMAP.md lays out 7 phases (Foundation -> Methodology -> Results
-> Prose -> AI peer review -> Partner re-review -> Submission);
STATE.md anchors at Phase 1 entry on branch paper-a-v4-big4.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
5.0 KiB
Requirements — Paper A v4.0 (Big-4 reframe)
Milestone: Paper A v4.0 IEEE Access submission with Big-4-only primary scope and full-dataset secondary robustness.
REQ-001: Big-4-only primary scope (foundation)
What: All primary statistical analysis (KDE+dip, BD/McCrary, Beta mixture, 2D-GMM K=2/K=3, pixel-identity FAR, held-out 70/30 z-test, classifier sensitivity) is rerun on the 437-CPA Big-4 subset (Firm A + KPMG + PwC + EY, n_signatures ≥ 10).
Acceptance:
- Script 20 rerun on Big-4 subset, dip-test p < 0.05 on cos_mean and dh_mean
- Script 21 (held-out validation) rerun on Big-4 subset
- Script 24 (calibration vs held-out z-test, classifier sensitivity) rerun on Big-4 subset
- Script 19 (pixel-identity / FAR) rerun on Big-4 subset
- All rerun outputs land under
reports/v4_big4/ - New operational threshold cos > 0.975 AND dh ≤ 3.76 (or refined K=2 posterior) documented with bootstrap 95% CI
REQ-002: Full-dataset robustness as secondary section
What: §IV-K (new) reports the full-dataset (686 CPA) version of the same analyses as a robustness check, demonstrating the pipeline runs at multiple scopes and explaining why the published v3.x 0.945 threshold drifted (mid/small-firm tail heterogeneity).
Acceptance:
- §IV-K table comparing Big-4-only vs full-dataset crossings, with mid/small-firm contribution analysis
- Explicit explanation of why Big-4 is the methodologically privileged primary scope
REQ-003: Methodology rewrite (§III-G / I / J / L)
What: Sections III-G (unit hierarchy / scope), III-I (threshold estimators), III-J (accountant-level GMM), III-L (per-document classifier rule) rewritten to reflect dip-test confirmed bimodality and the new K=2-derived classifier rule.
Acceptance:
- §III-G justifies Big-4 as the methodological unit (sample size, homogeneity, dip-test evidence)
- §III-I anchored on bootstrap-stable bimodal evidence rather than three-method convergence on unimodal data
- §III-J reports K=2 as primary (interpretable: replicated vs hand-leaning) with K=3 BIC slightly preferred (-1112 vs -1108) as secondary
- §III-L derives operational rule from Big-4 K=2 components and bootstrap CI
REQ-004: Results tables IV-XVIII regenerated
What: All results tables in §IV (currently Tables IV through XVIII at v3.20.0) regenerated on the Big-4 subset with consistent formatting and footnote citation to source script.
Acceptance:
- Each table cites the script + DB query that generated it
- Big-4 numbers replace full-dataset numbers as primary; full-dataset relegated to §IV-K
- Figures 1-4 regenerated; Fig 4 (yearly per-firm) likely reusable as-is
REQ-005: Firm A reframed as templated case study
What: Throughout the manuscript, Firm A's role pivots from "calibration anchor (with minority hand-signers)" to "case study of the templated end of Big-4 (0% in K=3 hand-sign-leaning cluster, 82.5% in replicated cluster)". PwC's higher hand-sign tradition (24/102 = 23.5% in C1) noted as a Big-4 internal contrast.
Acceptance:
- Discussion (§V) explicitly states Firm A is the most digitally-replicated of Big-4
- Cross-tab table (firm × cluster) included in either §IV or §V
- Conclusion's contributions list updated accordingly
REQ-006: AI peer review (≥3 rounds)
What: At least three cross-AI peer-review rounds on the v4.0 manuscript using codex (GPT-5.x), Gemini 3.x Pro, and Opus 4.7 max effort. Per [[feedback-ai-review-provenance]] memory: every reviewer-flagged empirical claim must be provenance-verified against fresh sqlite/grep against the named script.
Acceptance:
- Round 1 verdict obtained from each of the three reviewers
- All Major-class findings either RESOLVED in revision or explicitly disclaimed
- Final round produces ≥1 Accept / Minor verdict from at least 2 of 3 reviewers
REQ-007: Partner Jimmy second review on v4.0
What: Jimmy (who proposed Big-4-only direction) reviews the v4.0 manuscript end-to-end before submission.
Acceptance:
- v4.0 DOCX shipped to ~/Downloads
- Jimmy's response captured in repo (paper/partner_jimmy_v4_review.md)
- Any must-fix items resolved in v4.0.x
REQ-008: iThenticate + eCF + submission
What: iThenticate similarity check below 20%, IEEE eCF copyright form completed, manuscript uploaded via IEEE Access submission portal with cover letter.
Acceptance:
- iThenticate report saved under
paper/ithenticate_v4.pdf - eCF confirmation captured
- Submission portal confirmation number recorded in PROJECT.md "Validated" section
Cross-cutting constraints
- Reproducibility: every script accepts a
--scope big4|fullflag (or new scripts undersignature_analysis/v4_*if a flag refactor is too invasive) - Provenance: every numeric claim in the paper traces to (script_id, DB query, output file) — see
[[feedback-provenance-fabrication]] - No data re-ingest: existing
/Volumes/NV2/PDF-Processing/signature-analysis/signature_analysis.dbis the frozen snapshot - Branch isolation: all v4.0 work on
paper-a-v4-big4; do NOT merge back toyolo-signature-pipelineuntil v4.0 is partner-approved