Round-11 Gemini 3.1 Pro fresh full-paper review (Minor Revision)
surfaced four issues that the prior 10 rounds (codex gpt-5.4 x4, codex
gpt-5.5 x1, Gemini 3.1 Pro x2, Opus 4.7 x1, paragraph-level v3.11
review) all missed:
1. MAJOR - Percentile-terminology contradiction between Section III-L
L290 and Section III-H L160. III-L called 0.95 the "whole-sample
Firm A P95" of the per-signature best-match cosine distribution,
but III-H states 92.5% of Firm A signatures exceed 0.95. Under
standard bottom-up percentile convention this makes 0.95 the P7.5,
not the P95; Table XI calibration-fold data (Firm A cosine
median = 0.9862, P5 = 0.9407) confirms true P95 is near 0.998.
Fix: rewrote III-L L290 to state 0.95 corresponds to approximately
the whole-sample Firm A P7.5 with the 92.5%/7.5% complement stated
explicitly. dHash P95 claims elsewhere (Table XI, L229/L233) were
already correct under standard convention and are unchanged.
2. MINOR - Firm A CPA count inconsistency. Discussion V-C L44 said
"Nine additional Firm A CPAs are excluded from the GMM for having
fewer than 10 signatures" but Results IV-G.2 L216 defines 178
valid Firm A CPAs (180 registry minus 2 disambiguation-excluded);
178 - 171 = 7. Fix: corrected to "seven are outside the GMM" with
explicit 178-baseline and cross-reference to IV-G.2.
3. MINOR - Table XVI mixed-firm handling broken promise. Results
L355-356 previously said "mixed-firm reports are reported
separately" but Table XVI only lists single-firm rows summing to
exactly 83,970, and no subsequent prose reports the 384 mixed-firm
agreement rate. Fix: rewrote L355-356 to state Table XVI covers
the 83,970 single-firm reports only and that the 384 mixed-firm
reports (0.46%) are excluded because firm-level agreement is not
well defined when the two signers are at different firms.
4. MINOR - Contribution-count structural inconsistency. Introduction
enumerates seven contributions, Conclusion opens with "Our
contributions are fourfold." Fix: rewrote the Conclusion lead to
"The seven numbered contributions listed in Section I can be
grouped into four broader methodological themes," making the
grouping explicit.
No re-computation. All tables (IV-XVIII) and Appendix A numbers
unchanged. Abstract unchanged (still 248/250 words).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
gbanyan
9b0b8358a2