Arm C changed the proposal on 6 of the 12 sampled documents and moved the
K3 category counts by ZERO. Both arms: too coarse 8, too fine 4, duplicate
0, correct 0. That is the finding, not a null result -- the size rule makes
concepts smaller, which is what the consumer asked for, and K3 does not
measure size. It asks whether a boundary falls where a unit of knowledge
begins, and an arithmetic cut does not know where one begins.
Blind second rater per arm, n_blind = 6, two separate raters so an arm C
rating cannot anchor on an arm B one: 5/6 in each arm, and the two blind
raters' own six-document counts are identical to each other. The single
disagreement is the same document as the baseline's -- with the roles
reversed, and resolved by a specific offset in one direction and a general
impression in the other, exactly as the baseline described. The `too
coarse` count is still a floor.
Reported rather than smoothed: this first rater records 8/4/0/0 on the same
arm B proposals the 2026-09-02 baseline scored 7/3/1/1. The proposals did
not change; the rater did, and both differences are traced.
What did move, and is not K3: max concept body 217 472 -> 19 988,
concepts over 100 000 characters 4 -> 0, documents proposing nothing
11/39 -> 6/39, concepts 629 -> 680.
Found while measuring, not looked for: Bilag 9.1 -- the largest concept in
the bundle and the one the consumer flagged -- is an EXTRACTION failure.
95.1 % of its 217 470 characters are (cid:N) glyph codes and 98 alphabetic
words of 4+ letters survive in the whole document. Arm C divides unreadable
text into 14 pieces of unreadable text. Its verdict in both arms rests on
document identity, not on readable content.
The bundle a consumer is running against right now is byte-unchanged:
whole tree, 1108 files, sha256 9cd74519... before and after.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
98be70c144