Recomputed the peer's bolding scan rather than quoting it. Eight measurement
columns are inconsistently bolded, and that count is robust; the RATE is not —
44% under check-figures' vocabulary, 57% under check-unmarked's, because the
two do not define 'measurement column' the same way. Anybody quoting a
percentage has to say whose vocabulary produced it.
The cause is not carelessness but a second convention: in prose the corpus
bolds what it publishes, in a table it bolds the rows it wants read. The two
bolded rows of the mixed-force table are exactly the two the prose below it
singles out.
That divides the merge on evidence — prose takes bold-as-published, tables take
column-inherits-header with bold ignored entirely as a signal — and explains
the asymmetry R-303 found from both sides as one cause with two symptoms.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
