| |
| provenance:design:website_classification [2026/08/12 09:42] – Create provenance page for design:website_classification: the 424 -> 330 population narrowing, the resource fold's 20 -> 40 -> 33 residue and what was deliberately left, two report-script bugs, all five new LLM website-category quotes verified, and the 4, karel.kubicek.claude | provenance:design:website_classification [2026/08/12 10:07] (current) – Add section 10: the Fable review pass, the windowed-guard defect it exposed (29 corpus figures stale outside the audited heading window across six pages), the hardened check_page_numbers.mjs, and the page-specific fixes. Authored by Claude. karel.kubicek.claude |
|---|
| </code> | </code> |
| |
| ''check_page_numbers.mjs'' left four figures unaccounted, all deliberate: ''1,000'' (DarkGram's validation sample, from the paper), ''500'' (an image width in the ''{{...?nolink&500}}'' syntax — a false positive of the checker, worth knowing about), and ''7.4'' (the old cross-check share, quoted on the page as the comparison). It caught one real error: the page still said "the 73 excluded papers" after the count had moved to 94. | ''check_page_numbers.mjs'' left four figures unaccounted. **Three were deliberate** — ''1,000'' (DarkGram's validation sample, from the paper), ''500'' (an image width in the ''{{...?nolink&500}}'' syntax, a false positive of the checker worth knowing about) and ''7.4'' (the old cross-check share, quoted on the page as the comparison). **The fourth was a real catch**: the page still said "the 73 excluded papers" after the count had moved to 94. Run it whole-page too (§10). |
| |
| ===== 4. What the refresh changed ===== | ===== 4. What the refresh changed ===== |
| * **Nothing has re-audited the categorisation vendors since 2020.** That is the page's largest open question and this refresh does not touch it. | * **Nothing has re-audited the categorisation vendors since 2020.** That is the page's largest open question and this refresh does not touch it. |
| |
| ===== 9. Run log ===== | ===== 10. Review pass, 2026-08-12 ===== |
| | |
| | //Recorded.// The refresh was reviewed by a second model (Claude Fable 5), told explicitly that the summary it was given might not be exhaustive, with instructions to hunt stale numbers. It found a **systematic defect, not a scatter of typos**, and it is worth stating because it will recur on the next refresh: |
| | |
| | * ''check_page_numbers.mjs'' was run with a **heading window** — normally ''Use in Publications'' to the next section — so it audited only the corpus section. Every corpus figure repeated in a page's **intro, tooling section, recommendations, footnotes, Related Pages or an embedded code block** was outside the window and stayed at its 4,322-corpus value. Across the six pages **29 such figures** survived the first pass. |
| | * The matcher was **substring**, not word-boundary, so ''report.includes('59')'' was satisfied by ''11.59 bits''. One genuinely stale figure sat inside a checked window and passed for that reason. |
| | |
| | Both are fixed in ''scripts/check_page_numbers.mjs'': matching is now anchored with lookarounds, ISO dates and URLs are stripped before scanning, ''--code'' opts into scanning ''<file>'' blocks, and omitting the heading markers checks the whole page. **Run it windowed //and// whole-page.** The whole-page run is noisy — a page's non-corpus half is full of figures quoted from other papers — so read its output rather than expecting it to exit clean. |
| | Fixed on this page's content page as a result: the lead paragraph's **72% → 75%** for bespoke unsized taxonomies, which contradicted the corpus section's own "Three quarters … 75.4%" four screens down. |
| | |
| | §3 above previously said ''check_page_numbers.mjs'' "left four figures unaccounted, all deliberate" and then listed three. That was wrong in the way this whole review is about: the fourth was ''73'', a genuine stale count, and describing it as deliberate would have buried the guard's only real catch on this page. Corrected. |
| | |
| | ===== 11. Run log ===== |
| |
| ^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ ^ |
| | Caveats deleted | "IEEE S&P is only 43% retrieved, which is the most likely explanation for its 1.2% share" — replaced with a box recording that the hypothesis was correct and is now resolved. "anything published after 2024". | | | Caveats deleted | "IEEE S&P is only 43% retrieved, which is the most likely explanation for its 1.2% share" — replaced with a box recording that the hypothesis was correct and is now resolved. "anything published after 2024". | |
| | Mistake caught in review | ''check_page_numbers.mjs'' caught "the 73 excluded papers" left behind after the count moved to 94 — the third time in this refresh that the guard caught a number the human eye had skipped. | | | Mistake caught in review | ''check_page_numbers.mjs'' caught "the 73 excluded papers" left behind after the count moved to 94 — the third time in this refresh that the guard caught a number the human eye had skipped. | |
| | | Review | Reviewed by Claude Fable 5 on 2026-08-12 with the instruction that the summary might not be exhaustive. It found the windowed-guard defect in §10 and 1 stale figure on this page plus a mis-worded line in §3. All fixes were applied and re-saved the same day. | |
| |
| [[design:website_classification|← back to the content page]] · [[literature:corpus|corpus-level provenance]] | [[design:website_classification|← back to the content page]] · [[literature:corpus|corpus-level provenance]] |
| |
