Task metadata
| Field |
Value |
| Task ID |
W07 |
| Category |
Writing |
| Priority |
Medium |
| Complexity |
Low |
| Est. days |
2 |
| Blocked by |
E07, E08, E09, E10 |
Features / method
Replace transcribed estimates in the docs with the canonical result set.
Description
Once E07-E10 land, every number in the repo needs to be restated from the canonical run. Right now the README results table carries n=245 from an earlier cohort build, while the manifest in the repo has a 248-row test split, so the docs describe a cohort that no longer matches the code.
Also worth a pass for correctness while in there: the README and TECHNICAL.md both still describe the fairness and calibration analyses as part of the pipeline, and until E08/E09 produce artifacts those read as stronger than what exists.
Steps:
- Update the README results table with canonical numbers plus CIs, and correct n.
- Update the provenance note — drop the "transcribed from the E02 evaluation" caveat once it no longer applies, and state the device and command that produced the run.
- Update TECHNICAL.md 8 with in-cohort solo baselines alongside the published ones, so the comparison is not misread as like-for-like.
- Check off the resolved items in TECHNICAL.md 11 (pooling, pairing window, masking strategy) and delete any that E06/E07/D07 closed.
- Add fairness and calibration results to the README, or state plainly that they are pending.
- Confirm no synthetic harness-validation output from
failure/demo.py has leaked into any results table. Those numbers look real and are not.
Acceptance criteria:
- Every reported number traceable to a run that was actually executed, with device and command recorded.
- No transcribed or estimated values presented as measured.
- Cohort n consistent between docs and the manifest in the repo.
- Synthetic demo output clearly labelled wherever it appears.
Task metadata
W07Features / method
Replace transcribed estimates in the docs with the canonical result set.
Description
Once E07-E10 land, every number in the repo needs to be restated from the canonical run. Right now the README results table carries n=245 from an earlier cohort build, while the manifest in the repo has a 248-row test split, so the docs describe a cohort that no longer matches the code.
Also worth a pass for correctness while in there: the README and TECHNICAL.md both still describe the fairness and calibration analyses as part of the pipeline, and until E08/E09 produce artifacts those read as stronger than what exists.
Steps:
failure/demo.pyhas leaked into any results table. Those numbers look real and are not.Acceptance criteria: