Files
pdf_signature_extraction/.planning/STATE.md
T
gbanyan e9357c903b Update STATE.md: Phase 5 closed; Phase 6 ready to begin
Phase 5 AI peer review convergence achieved 2026-05-14 with 3/3
reviewers in Accept/Minor band:
- Gemini round-2: Accept (splice-ready as-is)
- Opus round-2: Minor Revision (N1-N4 → closed in round-4)
- codex round-9: Minor Revision (N1/N2 provenance → closed in round-5)

Fix-round commits archived: b884d39 (round-2), 4a6f9c5 (round-3),
d3ddf74 (round-4), 128a914 (round-5). Reviewer artifacts archived
at paper/codex_review_gpt55_v4_round{7,8,9}.md, paper/gemini_review_
v4_round{1,2}.md, paper/opus_review_v4_round{1,2}.md.

Phase 6 tasks documented: partner-framing confirmation (reject
"statistically insignificant"), manuscript-splice assembly with
internal-note strips, DOCX export, partner Jimmy review.

Phase 7 tasks documented: iThenticate, IEEE eCF, submission.

Lessons added to memory cross-references: codex round-9's
DB-verification caught a "majority firm" inference that turned out
to be 1:1 ties (round-5 corrected); codex's read-only jitter rerun
exposed an unreproducible non-Big-4 range (round-5 replaced with
codex-verified range).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-14 18:09:33 +08:00

81 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# STATE — Current snapshot
**Date**: 2026-05-14
**Active milestone**: Paper A v4.0 — Big-4 reframe
**Active branch**: `paper-a-v4-big4` (41 commits ahead of `master`; fully pushed to `origin/paper-a-v4-big4` at `128a914`)
**Active phase**: **Phase 5 — AI peer review COMPLETE; Phase 6 ready to begin**
## Phase 5 closure summary (2026-05-14)
**Convergence achieved**: 3/3 reviewers in Accept/Minor band across the round-2 cross-check.
| Reviewer | Final round | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | round 2 | **Accept** (Phase 5 splice-ready as-is) |
| Opus 4.7 | round 2 | Minor Revision (4 substantive findings → closed in round-4) |
| codex GPT-5.5 | round 9 | Minor Revision (2 provenance findings → closed in round-5) |
**Original Phase 5 gate met**: Accept/Minor consensus from ≥2 of 3 reviewers. No empirical reruns required.
**Phase 5 fix rounds applied** (commits on this branch):
1. `9604b27` — codex round-7 closeout copy-edit (candidate classifiers → candidate checks; refs [42]-[44] added; §II placeholder caveat removed; STATE.md refresh)
2. `b884d39` — round-2 fixes (Opus M1: §IV K=3 mechanism-label reversion; M2: Table XV-B → XIX + cascade XIX → XX … XXV → XXVI; M3: "98-100%" within-firm semantic conflation; M4: duplicate §V-G heading; Gemini Table XV sample-size footnote)
3. `4a6f9c5` — round-3 fixes (codex round-8 splice blockers: abstract trim 261 → 247 words; §IV-J Table XV footnote §IV-M.5 reclassification; §IV-I "§IV-M Table XVI" → "§IV-M Tables XXI-XXVI"; binary-collapse terminology cleanup)
4. `d3ddf74` — round-4 fixes (Opus round-2 N1: Firm C 19,501 vs 19,122 denominator footnote; N2: composition-decomposition added as Table XXVII row 1; N3: Table XXVII numbered; N4: cross-firm hit matrix assumption disclosure)
5. `128a914` — round-5 provenance patches (codex round-9 factual corrections: N1 "majority firm" → "1:1 tie-break to first-sorted firm" via Script 45 `np.argmax`; N2 row narrowed to Big-4-only evidence; non-Big-4 jittered-dHash range $[0.71, 1.00]$ → codex-verified $[0.38, 1.00]$ with read-only-spike provenance)
**Reviewer artifacts archived** (paper/):
- `codex_review_gpt55_v4_round{7,8,9}.md`
- `gemini_review_v4_round{1,2}.md`
- `opus_review_v4_round{1,2}.md`
## Phase 5 substantive findings catalogue
**v4 methodological pivot** (unchanged through all reviewer rounds):
- Distributional path to thresholds (K=3 / dip / antimode) abandoned; anchor-based ICCR calibration at 3 units adopted
- "FAR" → "ICCR" throughout; inter-CPA-as-negative assumption disclosed as partially violated by within-firm template sharing
- K=3 demoted to descriptive firm-compositional partition (§III-J line 90 retires "hand-leaning / mixed / replicated" mechanism labels)
- Positioning: anchor-calibrated specificity-only screening framework with human-in-the-loop review; NOT a validated forensic detector
**Empirical anchors** (all provenance-verified across reviewer panel):
- Three feature-derived scores converge Spearman $\rho \geq 0.879$ (internal consistency; not external validation)
- Anchor-based ICCRs: per-comparison $0.0006/0.0013/0.00014$; per-signature $0.11$; per-document $0.34$
- Firm heterogeneity decisive: Firm A per-doc HC+MC alarm $0.62$ vs Firms B/C/D $0.09$$0.16$; logistic OR $0.05/0.01/0.03$ relative to Firm A reference
- Within-firm collision concentration under deployed any-pair rule: Firm A $98.8\%$ vs Firms B/C/D $76.7$$83.7\%$; same-pair joint event saturates at $97.0$$99.96\%$ within-firm at all four firms
## Phase 6 — Partner Jimmy v4.0 review (READY TO BEGIN)
**Pre-Phase-6 partner alignment** (2026-05-13 still open): partner asked whether firm heterogeneity could be framed as "statistically insignificant." **Decision: no** — heterogeneity is highly significant (4062σ in logistic regression; all three AI reviewers independently confirmed the decisive framing). Confirm framing with partner before exporting DOCX.
**Phase 6 tasks**:
1. Confirm "statistically insignificant" framing rejection with partner
2. Manuscript-splice assembly:
- Splice §III-G–§III-M (paper_a_methodology_v4_section_iii.md) onto v3.20.0 §III-A–§III-F into master `paper/paper_a_methodology_v3.md` body
- Splice §IV v3.3 (paper_a_results_v4_section_iv.md) into master `paper/paper_a_results_v3.md`
- Splice Phase 4 prose (Abstract / §I / §II / §V / §VI) into the master manuscript file
- **Strip internal-only blocks** during splice: Phase 4 line 3 draft note + lines 153-162 close-out checklist; §III line 3 + lines 434-447 cross-reference checklist + open-questions block; §IV line 3 + close-out checklist at line 365+
- Re-verify table numbering after splice (Table XXVII currently lives in §III between §IV-M.6's Table XXVI; confirm order in final master file)
3. Export v4.0 DOCX via `paper/export_v3.py` (with author block fill)
4. Ship to ~/Downloads
5. Iterate on Jimmy's review comments
6. Capture review artifact in `paper/partner_jimmy_v4_review.md`
## Phase 7 — IEEE Access submission (pending Phase 6)
1. iThenticate similarity check (target < 20%)
2. IEEE eCF form
3. Upload manuscript + cover letter via IEEE Access submission portal
4. Capture confirmation number
## Blockers
None. Phase 5 closed; Phase 6 ready to begin pending partner-framing confirmation.
## Things to remember (per memory)
- Inter-CPA "FAR" is NOT true FAR; it's a coincidence rate (ICCR) under an assumption violated by within-firm template sharing — never write "FAR" or "specificity" without the disclaimer ([[feedback-inter-cpa-negative-anchor-assumption]])
- Dip test on Big-4 dh is composition + integer artefact, not mechanism — §III-I.1 "dip justifies finite mixture" framing must NOT be used; K=3 is descriptive of firm composition ([[feedback-dip-test-composition-artifact]])
- Provenance-verify all empirical claims against fresh sqlite/grep ([[feedback-provenance-fabrication]]) — codex round-9's DB-verification caught a "majority firm" inference in round-4 that turned out to be 1:1 ties resolved by `np.argmax` tie-break; round-5 corrected it
- AI peer reviewers have accepted fabricated claims in the past; verify numbers against scripts, not against reviewer agreement ([[feedback-ai-review-provenance]]) — codex round-9's read-only rerun of the non-Big-4 jittered procedure exposed an unreproducible $[0.71, 1.00]$ range that round-5 corrected to $[0.38, 1.00]$
- Paper C standalone is shelved — folded into v4.0 §IV-K (Light full-dataset robustness)