R-304's rate was an artefact; the proposed correction, retreating to the seven
both vocabularies agree on, overshoots. Opening every disputed column instead
of comparing totals: 'Then wipes' is genuine and check-unmarked misses it
because wiped? does not match wipes; '1 in 100 runs past' is genuine and
check-figures misses it because its vocabulary has rounds? and not runs; only
THROUGH_TRAIN's 'Measured over 300 runs' is a false positive, and there the
cells are whole sentences and the bold wraps a clause.
So nine, and the shape matters more than the number: each vocabulary has a real
gap the other covers, which argues for the union of both word lists.
Refuses one recommendation. Dropping runs? from the header vocabulary would
also drop the p99 column, whose cells cite fight-tail cut.p99 and column.p99
and which R-269 added because the median is not a plan. That is the R-299
failure again — a guard narrowing itself until the figure it exists to watch
falls outside. The real exclusion wanted is 'a column whose cells are sentences
rather than values', which is testable; subtracting a word cannot tell the two
cases apart.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
