gbanyan cb77f481ec Paper A v3.18.1: address remaining partner red-pen prose clarity items ...

Three targeted fixes per partner's red-pen audit (residue from v3.18 cleanup):

1. III-D 92.6% match rate -- partner red-circled the bare figure ("不太懂改善線").
   Add explicit explanation of the unmatched 7.4% (13,573 signatures): they
   could not be matched to a registered CPA name (deviation from two-signature
   layout, OCR-name mismatch) and are excluded from same-CPA pairwise analyses
   for definitional reasons, not discarded as noise.

2. III-I.1 Hartigan dip-test wording -- partner wrote "?所以為何?" next to the
   "rejecting unimodality is consistent with but does not directly establish
   bimodality" sentence. Replace with a direct three-line explanation: the
   test asks "is the distribution single-peaked?", a non-significant p means
   we cannot reject single-peak, a significant p means more than one peak
   (could be 2/3/...). Removes the partner's confusion without losing rigor.

3. IV-G validation lead-in -- partner wrote "不太懂為何陳述?" on the
   tangled "consistency check / threshold-free / operational classifier"
   triple. Rewrite as a three-bullet structure that names the *informative
   quantity* in each subsection (temporal trend / concentration ratio /
   cross-firm gap) and states explicitly why each is robust to cutoff choice.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-04-27 17:48:59 +08:00

278 KiB

Raw History

View Raw