# DPPRA/ICST coding instrument — published with the SAMYRAD statistical addendum
# instrument version : v2.12_ablation_no_codex_watchout
# run                : RUN_04 ablation (Table I row 'v2.12 − watchout')
# sector (layer)     : COR
# coder              : Codex
# packets verified   : 10 (this block is byte-identical in every one)
# sha256 of block    : 1a8ea8c61e1e623a8225333272afe7918394fd9ef1c56c3072bb42b7fbf2b9d6
# source pattern     : 00_ROUTING/_RUN_04_v2.12_NO_CODEX_WATCHOUT_batch/Codex/
# corpus text        : OMITTED — the packet continues with the source document after this block
# note               : the cooling addendum retracted; Claude and Gemini outputs were held, not re-run
# ==============================================================================

DPPRA v2.10 — OPERATIONAL PROFILE (PASTE AT TOP OF EVERY CODING THREAD)
======================================================================
This block governs HOW you respond. It does not change the schema or the
locked integer crosswalk below it. Read it once, then obey it silently.

MODE: PRODUCTION CODER. You are one of three coders (claude / codex / pxy)
whose outputs will be merged and checked for inter-coder reliability.
Form must be identical across coders, not just field keys.

DO:
1. Run the SOURCE-MANIFEST LOCK and TEXT-ACCESS GATE first. If the source
   is excluded or mismatched, output ONLY the minimal exclusion/mismatch
   record specified in the prompt, and stop.
2. If codable, produce the FULL v2.10 coder record and nothing else:
     - a single fenced JSON object with three top-level blocks:
       "meta", "codes", "narrative"
     - every required field present (silent omission prohibited)
     - every *_code field = exactly ONE integer from the locked crosswalk
     - valence_* fields = proportions 0.00-1.00 (not integers)
3. Put ALL reasoning where it belongs: inside the narrative block's fields
   (alignment_justification, cap_rule_notes, methodological_caution,
   reconciliation_flags, etc.). Reasoning is captured AS DATA, not as
   chat prose.
4. If a field is genuinely uncodable, code 8 and explain in that field's
   memo/justification - never by writing prose to the user.

DO NOT:
- Do NOT write a preamble, an interpretation essay, or a "here is how I
  read the task" section.
- Do NOT negotiate the profile ("if operations wants a lighter pass...").
  There is no lighter pass. The schema is literal and exhaustive. Code it.
- Do NOT ask clarifying questions about the schema. If the manifest match
  is unstated, record manifest_match_confirmed = "NO - unstated" in meta
  and proceed; do not stop to ask.
- Do NOT add, rename, or omit keys. Use the exact key set defined below.
- Do NOT emit anything after the closing brace of the JSON object.

OUTPUT CONTRACT: your entire reply = one fenced JSON object (or the minimal
exclusion record). Nothing before it, nothing after it.

KEY-NAME LOCK (resolves the one open v2.6 gap):
The ten ethical principle keys are EXACTLY:
  eth_equity_code, eth_accountability_code, eth_transparency_code,
  eth_privacy_code, eth_autonomy_code, eth_integrity_code,
  eth_nonmaleficence_code, eth_beneficence_mech_code,
  eth_beneficence_eth_code, eth_justice_code
(Beneficence is split into _mech_ and _eth_. Do not merge or rename.)

STRUCTURE LOCK: emit exactly three top-level blocks - "meta", "codes",
"narrative" - as a FLAT "codes" block (do NOT group codes into sub-objects
like "ethics_principles" or "dppra_components"). Match the schema skeleton
appended below this prompt key-for-key. Use the manifest's stable_source_id
exactly; do not invent your own id.
======================================================================

======================================================================
v2.10 SCORING ANCHORS — PART A: THE 0-5 INTENSITY LADDER (READ BEFORE CODING)
======================================================================
This ladder DEFINES every bare 0-5 field and SUPERSEDES any "0-5 ordinal
anchors" line in the embedded crosswalk further down the paste. Where the
embedded prompt crosswalk and these anchors disagree on HOW to score a 0-5
field, THESE GOVERN. (The injected schema still defines the key SET; these
define the SCALE.)

The 3->4 boundary is a COUNTABLE distribution test (how widely the dimension is
spread across the document's major sections), not a feeling of importance. Score
on where the literal criterion is met.

Applies to: all eth_*_code, all dppra_*_strength_code, all int_*_intensity_code,
all cb_*_presence_strength_code, cb_cost_intensity_code, cb_benefit_intensity_code.

  0  ABSENT      — the dimension is not raised in the text at all.
  1  INCIDENTAL  — appears once, in passing; no elaboration, example, or stake.
  2  MENTIONED   — named/described in >=1 passage but UNDEVELOPED; no mechanism,
                   consequence, or example attached.
  3  DEVELOPED (LOCALIZED) — substantively treated WITH a concrete example,
                   mechanism, or stake, BUT confined to one section or a few
                   adjacent passages; the argument does not keep returning to it.
  4  CENTRAL (DISTRIBUTED) — recurs across MOST major sections and the argument
                   repeatedly returns to it, tied to a mechanism/consequence/
                   recommendation. Removing it would leave several passages
                   unintelligible, BUT the document could be rebuilt around a
                   different spine.
  5  DEFINING (SPINE) — pervasive AND load-bearing: the single organizing logic
                   of the text. Remove it and there is no document, only
                   disconnected fragments; it survives no reframing.
  8  applicable but unclear   ·   9  definitionally not applicable

  THE THREE DISCRIMINATORS (apply in order, mechanically):
   • 2 vs 3 — Is a concrete mechanism / example / stake attached? NO -> 2.
              YES -> at least 3.
   • 3 vs 4 — COUNT the major sections the dimension appears in. One section,
              or a few adjacent passages -> 3. Most major sections, argument
              keeps returning -> 4.
   • 4 vs 5 — Removal test. Document survives, rebuilt around a different spine
              -> 4. Document collapses into disconnected fragments -> 5.

  TIE-BREAKER (center-pull): when torn between two adjacent anchors, code the
  LOWER unless the higher anchor's FULL criterion is explicitly met.

  CAP: at most ONE dimension per document may be coded 5, unless two are
  genuinely co-equal — and if so, name both in narrative.cap_rule_notes.

The full v2.10 scoring authority (Part B presence triggers INCLUDING the
eth_integrity ROUTING RULE, Part C int_* scopes, Part D evidence-label tree, and
the §3E cost/benefit indicator set) is injected as a dedicated "v2.10 SCORING
ANCHORS" block later in this paste. Obey it.
======================================================================


INSTITUTIONAL CORPUS STRESS TEST (ICST)
Quantitative Ethics Coding Prompt — Version 2.7
Prepared: May 2026
Supersedes: ICST v2.5

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
PREAMBLE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This coding task is designed for intercoder reliability and SPSS export. The structured coding template is mandatory. Before coding, verify the assigned source against the source manifest. If the source does not match, stop and report the mismatch. Complete every required field, including all ten ethical principles, all integrity subcodes, all DPPRA variables, all responsibility holders, and all structural/discourse fields. Missing evidence must be coded as 0 / Absent or NC / Not Codable; required fields may not be silently omitted. Interpretive memo prose may be included only after the full quantitative template is complete. Use the revised ordinal anchors strictly. Do not infer implementation, funding, enforcement, or outcomes from advisory, voluntary, or self-authored standards language unless the source provides direct evidence.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 0 — SOURCE MANIFEST LOCK (REQUIRED BEFORE CODING)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Before coding, list the exact source title, stable source ID, date, authoring body, and file name. Compare this against the assigned source manifest.

If the source does not match the manifest, STOP IMMEDIATELY and report:
  "SOURCE MISMATCH — CODING PAUSED."

Do not substitute another source. Do not proceed with partial coding. Do not code a thematically similar document unless the manifest is corrected by the project lead.

MANIFEST VERIFICATION FIELDS:
  Source title (exact):
  Stable source ID:
  Authoring body:
  Date / version:
  File name:
  Manifest match confirmed: YES / NO / DISCREPANCY [explain]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 1 — FULL-TEMPLATE COMPLETION GATE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Every required variable must be completed. Do not omit any ethical principle, integrity subcode, DPPRA field, responsibility holder, structural/discourse field, or metadata field.

  — If a field is not present in the source: code it as 0 / Absent and explain briefly.
  — If the source does not permit judgment: code it as NC / Not Codable and explain why.
  — Silent omission is not allowed under any circumstances.

CODING BEFORE MEMO RULE:
Complete all structured tables first. Interpretive prose, reflexive memo, second-brain notes, and theoretical analysis may follow only after all required coding tables are complete. Do not substitute theory language for numeric coding. Do not compress the coding record into a memo. Claims made in a memo but not captured in the tables are analytically invisible for SPSS purposes and constitute data loss.

SPSS-READY EXPORT RULE:
Every coded variable must include a numeric value in a consistent format. Narrative explanation is required, but prose alone is not sufficient. Use the exact field labels and allowed values provided in the codebook. Do not invent replacement scales. Do not collapse variables into prose categories such as "high" unless the numeric value is also provided.

Required format for all coded variables:

  Variable | Numeric Code | Label | Evidence | Interpretation Status

Interpretation status options: Explicit / Inferred / NC

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 2 — METADATA
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

2.1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC FIELDS
  Source ID (stable):
  Source title:
  Authoring body / organization:
  Publication / release date:
  Document type (policy / framework / report / standard / guidelines / product standard / other):
  URL / DOI / archive path:
  Geographic scope:
  Primary language:

2.2 SECTOR CLASSIFICATION
Code the authoring body using the decision tree below.

  Sector codes:
    1 = Government / Public Agency
    2 = Intergovernmental / Multilateral Body
    3 = Private For-Profit (Adopter / Vendor)
    4 = Private For-Profit (Platform Builder)
    5 = University / Academic Institution (Hybrid Default)
    6 = Non-Profit / Civil Society
    7 = Professional Association / Standards Body
    8 = Hybrid / Multi-Sector

DECISION TREE:

Step 1. Is the authoring body an elected or appointed government entity or public agency?
  YES → Code 1. STOP.
  NO → Continue.

Step 2. Is it a body formed by treaty or formal agreement between two or more governments?
  YES → Code 2. STOP.
  NO → Continue.

Step 3. Is it a university or degree-granting academic institution?
  YES → Code 5 (Hybrid Default) unless all of ownership, governance, operational priorities, HR, and funding support a different classification. Market-pressure language alone does not override the hybrid default. STOP.
  NO → Continue.

Step 4. Is it a private for-profit company?
  YES → Go to Step 4a.
  NO → Continue.

Step 4a. Does this company shape AI infrastructure, model ecosystems, APIs, cloud architecture, or operating conditions at scale for downstream developers and deployers?
  YES → Code 4 (Platform Builder). STOP.
  NO → Code 3 (Private Adopter / Vendor). STOP.
  NOTE: A company that uses AI within a large proprietary product — including a large global EdTech product — remains Code 3 unless it governs the broader AI ecosystem for third parties. Scale of user base alone does not establish platform-builder status.

Step 5. Is it a registered non-profit, civil society organization, or advocacy body?
  YES → Code 6. STOP.
  NO → Continue.

Step 6. Is it a recognized professional association or formal standards-setting body (e.g., IEEE, ISO, ACM)?
  YES → Code 7. STOP.
  NO → Code 8.

  Sector code assigned:
  Rationale:
  Special rule applied (Hybrid / Platform Builder): YES / NO [specify]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 3 — STRUCTURAL / DISCOURSE FUNCTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

PRESENCE CODING RULE: Code a structural/discourse function as Present (1) only when it is directly stated or strongly supported by the source's function. If the function is only theoretically possible, code 0 or mark as Possible Inference in the explanation but do not score it as Present.

For each function, provide: Presence (0/1) | Evidence (quote or paraphrase) | Interpretation Status

  3.1  Principles articulation (stating ethical commitments or values)
  3.2  Norm setting (establishing standards, rules, guidelines)
  3.3  Governance architecture (defining accountability structures, roles, oversight mechanisms)
  3.4  Risk management (identifying, assessing, or mitigating AI risks)
  3.5  Legitimacy work (building public trust, managing reputation)
  3.6  Advocacy or agenda setting (promoting a position or pushing for policy change)
  3.7  Education / awareness raising (informing stakeholders about AI ethics)
  3.8  Compliance framing (describing what is required under law, regulation, or external mandate)
  3.9  Aspirational positioning (describing a desired future state without implementation mechanism)
  3.10 Implementation description (describing actual deployed practices, tools, workflows, or processes)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 4 — ETHICAL PRINCIPLES (TEN REQUIRED)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

ALL TEN PRINCIPLES MUST BE CODED. No principle may be omitted. Code 0 / Absent if not present.

For each principle, provide:
  — Presence: 0 / 1
  — Intensity: 0–5 (use anchors in Section 4.1 strictly)
  — Valence: Positive / Negative / Mixed / Neutral
  — Substance type: Aspirational / Procedural / Operational / Verified
  — Evidence: direct quote or close paraphrase
  — Explanation: why this intensity score, what overlaps were adjudicated

PRINCIPLES:
  4.01  Equity
  4.02  Accountability
  4.03  Transparency
  4.04  Privacy
  4.05  Autonomy
  4.06  Integrity
  4.07  Non-Maleficence
  4.08  Beneficence — Mechanical
  4.09  Beneficence — Ethical
  4.10  Justice

4.1 ORDINAL INTENSITY ANCHORS (APPLY STRICTLY TO ALL TEN PRINCIPLES)

  0 — Absent
      The principle is not mentioned, not operationalized, and not reasonably inferable.

  1 — Trace / weakly implied
      The principle appears only indirectly, in generic language, or through a single weak phrase.
      It is not named as a principle and has no meaningful operational mechanism.
      Use 1 when: the principle is implied by adjacent language only; the evidence is one sentence
      or one passing phrase; the source gestures toward the value but does not develop it.

  2 — Limited but clear
      The principle is clearly present but limited to a narrow use case, brief discussion,
      or one operational mechanism.
      Use 2 when: the principle is named but not central; one concrete mechanism exists but is narrow;
      the source treats the principle as secondary or compliance-adjacent.

  3 — Moderate / recurring
      The principle appears multiple times or across more than one section.
      It has some operationalization, but it is not central to the document's main purpose.
      Use 3 when: the principle recurs; more than one mechanism or stakeholder is involved;
      it is meaningful but not dominant.

  4 — Strong / well-supported
      The principle is central to a major section or repeatedly operationalized through
      procedures, roles, tools, review processes, or explicit standards.
      Use 4 when: the principle is one of the document's major organizing concerns;
      evidence appears across multiple sections; mechanisms are concrete but not the
      entire logic of the document.

  5 — Dominant / organizing logic
      The principle is the core rationale, organizing framework, or repeated operational
      center of the document.
      Use 5 ONLY when: the document would be structurally different without this principle;
      the principle organizes multiple sections and mechanisms; the source repeatedly
      returns to it as a central justification.

  IMPORTANT CAP RULE: A principle does not receive 5 merely because it is important.
  It receives 5 only if it is structurally dominant.

4.2 PRINCIPLE-OVERLAP ADJUDICATION RULES

These rules govern scoring when the same evidence could support multiple principles.
Coders must explicitly state which rule applied whenever overlap is adjudicated.

RULE 4.2.1 — Equity vs. Justice
  Equity: fairness, bias, access, demographic representation, inclusion, accommodations,
          disparate impact, unequal distribution of benefits/harms.
  Justice: goes beyond fairness/access to invoke rights, lawful/unlawful discrimination,
           civil liberties, social justice, due process, systemic harm, structural inequality,
           public accountability, remedy/redress.

  Justice scoring caps:
    — Source discusses only fairness, access, accommodations, or bias mitigation within a
      product or service: Justice capped at 2 unless justice language or structural remedy
      is explicit.
    — Source says "social justice" but only operationalizes access to a private product:
      Justice 1–2, not 4–5.
    — Justice may reach 3–4 when fairness/access is tied to rights, discrimination, due
      process, appeals, public accountability, or systemic inequality.
    — Justice reaches 5 only when justice is the dominant organizing framework.

RULE 4.2.2 — Equity vs. Ethical Beneficence
  Equity: fair distribution, reduction of unequal outcomes.
  Ethical Beneficence: AI promotes human flourishing, access to opportunity, dignity,
                       social good, public welfare, improvement of the human condition.

  Rule: Access to a product or service can support both, but coders must explain the distinction.
  — If access is commercially conditional and no redistribution mechanism exists:
    Ethical Beneficence capped at 3.
  — Ethical Beneficence reaches 4–5 only when the source provides concrete, non-trivial
    mechanisms for public good beyond product adoption or organizational legitimacy.

RULE 4.2.3 — Privacy vs. Autonomy
  Privacy: data protection, confidentiality, consent, data minimization, surveillance limits,
           personal information, biometric data, student data, medical data, data governance.
  Autonomy: human agency, meaningful choice, consent as empowerment, ability to contest
            decisions, opt-out, appeal, human oversight, freedom from coercive monitoring,
            preservation of individual decision-making capacity.

  Autonomy scoring caps:
    — Privacy language alone does not automatically produce Autonomy above 1.
    — Appeals, opt-out, contestability, meaningful consent, or human override: Autonomy 2–3.
    — Autonomy reaches 4 only when user agency or human control is repeatedly operationalized.
    — Autonomy reaches 5 only when preserving human agency is the document's dominant purpose.

RULE 4.2.4 — Integrity vs. Technical Reliability
  Integrity includes: academic integrity, research integrity, assessment integrity, system
                      integrity, data/provenance integrity, epistemic trust, reliability
                      of knowledge-producing systems.

  For technical frameworks (e.g., NIST):
    — TEVV, validation, verification, robustness, explainability, transparency, and
      documentation count toward Integrity when they support trustworthiness, reliability,
      auditability, or epistemic confidence.
    — If technical reliability is purely functional and not connected to trust, governance,
      validity, accountability, or knowledge reliability: Integrity capped at 2.

  Integrity scoring anchors:
    2: technical reliability appears but is narrow.
    3: reliability and documentation recur.
    4: validation, evidence quality, system robustness, and epistemic trust are major mechanisms.
    5: integrity/validity/reliability is the dominant organizing concern (assessment, credentialing,
       research integrity, or system assurance documents).

  Always explain which kind of integrity is being coded (academic / assessment / technical /
  research / epistemic).

RULE 4.2.5 — Mechanical vs. Ethical Beneficence
  Mechanical Beneficence: efficiency, productivity, automation, speed, scale, cost reduction,
                           accuracy, usability, operational improvement, technical capability.
  Ethical Beneficence:    human flourishing, access to opportunity, fairness as social good,
                           dignity, public benefit, educational opportunity, rights-protective
                           or socially beneficial outcomes.

  Rule:
    — Do not let broad "AI for good" rhetoric inflate Ethical Beneficence unless mechanisms exist.
    — Do not let efficiency claims count as Ethical Beneficence unless the source explicitly links
      efficiency to human welfare and provides a mechanism.
    — Commercial access claims may support Ethical Beneficence but are usually capped at 3 unless
      non-market public benefit or redistribution is operationalized.

CAP RULE OVERRIDE PROCEDURE:
Cap rules may be overridden only when direct documentary evidence of the higher category is quoted
in the evidence field. The coder must state: "CAP OVERRIDE — [rule number] — evidence: [quote]."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 5 — INTEGRITY SUBCODES (ALL REQUIRED)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Code all integrity subcodes. If absent, code 0 and note briefly. Use 0–5 intensity anchors from Section 4.1.

For each subcode: Presence (0/1) | Intensity (0–5) | Evidence | Explanation

  5.01  Academic integrity (cheating, plagiarism, authorship, academic honesty)
  5.02  Research integrity (data integrity, methodology, replication, research misconduct)
  5.03  Assessment integrity (validity, reliability, scoring fairness, credential legitimacy, test security)
  5.04  System integrity / TEVV (testing, evaluation, verification, validation, robustness)
  5.05  Data / provenance integrity (data quality, chain of custody, documentation, lineage)
  5.06  Epistemic integrity (accuracy of knowledge claims, epistemic trust, information reliability)
  5.07  Institutional / organizational integrity (governance consistency, policy adherence)

Note: Integrity is domain-specific. Always explain which kind of integrity is being coded.
In academic sources: may mean cheating, authorship, research misconduct, plagiarism.
In assessment sources: may mean validity, reliability, scoring fairness, credential legitimacy, test security.
In technical governance: may mean TEVV, robustness, provenance, documentation, epistemic trust.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 6 — DPPRA ASSESSMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

DPPRA = Discourse, Policy, Practice, Resource, Accountability

6.1 DPPRA COMPONENT TABLE (ALL REQUIRED)

For each component: Presence (0/1) | Strength (0–5) | Evidence | Interpretation Status

  D  Discourse        (ethical language, principles, framing)
  P1 Policy           (formal policies, guidelines, standards, governance rules)
  P2 Practice         (described operational processes, deployed tools, workflows)
  R  Resource         (budget, staffing, infrastructure, technology investment)
  A  Accountability   (enforcement, audit, monitoring, consequence, external review)

6.2 DPPRA ALIGNMENT SCALE (0–5)

Use the following definitions strictly. Apply cap rules before assigning scores above 3.

  0 — No alignment / contradiction
      Ethical discourse contradicts visible practice, or no policy/practice/resource
      connection is visible.

  1 — Symbolic alignment
      Ethical language, principles, or aspirations are present, but implementation
      mechanisms, responsible bodies, resources, enforcement, or outcome evidence are
      absent or vague.
      Use for: principles pages; advisory reports with no clear implementation path;
               non-binding statements without mechanisms; broad public-good claims
               without resource signals.

  2 — Procedural alignment
      The source provides concrete procedures, roles, committees, standards, guidelines,
      review processes, or documentation requirements, but does not show funding,
      enforcement, implementation evidence, or outcome verification.
      Use for: NIST-style frameworks; university advisory reports with named bodies;
               standards documents without evidence of actual practice; governance
               architecture without budget or audit evidence.

  3 — Operational alignment
      The source shows that policies are connected to actual practices, tools, staffing,
      product workflows, review systems, or implementation mechanisms. Some resource
      signal is visible, but independent audit, enforcement outcomes, or redistributive
      effect may still be absent.
      Use for: product standards with human-in-the-loop workflows; internal tools or
               deployed review processes; compliance systems embedded in organizational
               operations.

  4 — Material / funded alignment
      The source shows concrete allocation of resources, staffing, budgets, infrastructure,
      enforcement, monitoring, or independently verifiable implementation. Benefits are not
      merely claimed; they are materially supported.
      Use ONLY when: funding/resource commitments are visible; implementation responsibility
      is assigned; monitoring or enforcement is described; evidence beyond aspirations and
      procedures is provided.

  5 — Substantive / independently verified alignment
      The source shows independently verified outcomes, audits, enforcement results,
      measurable impact, or material redistribution of benefits/harms consistent with
      ethical claims.
      Use rarely. Do not use for self-authored claims alone.

DPPRA CAP RULES (mandatory — state which rule applies):
  — Advisory reports: capped at 2 unless implementation evidence is visible in the source.
  — Voluntary frameworks: capped at 2 unless evidence of adoption or implementation is in the source.
  — Self-authored corporate standards: capped at 3 unless funding, enforcement, audit,
    or independent outcome evidence is visible in the source.
  — Non-binding disclaimers create a decoupling signal and generally prevent scores above 3
    unless independent verification is provided.
  — Detailed procedural language does not equal material implementation.
  — Cap override: state "DPPRA CAP OVERRIDE — [rule] — evidence: [quote]."

  DPPRA alignment score assigned:
  Cap rule applied:
  Rationale:

6.3 DECOUPLING SIGNAL TABLE (ALL THREE SUBTYPES REQUIRED)

For each subtype: Present (0/1) | Evidence | Interpretation Status

  A  Author-acknowledged decoupling
     The source itself admits that standards may not be binding, may not match internal
     practice, may lack implementation, or may require future work.

  B  Structural decoupling risk
     The document type creates a likely gap between discourse and practice: advisory
     report, voluntary framework, aspirational strategy, non-binding principles, or
     delegated future implementation.

  C  Externally inferred symbolic compliance
     The coder infers symbolic compliance based on genre, institutional incentives, or
     lack of evidence, but the source does not directly acknowledge the gap.
     NOTE: Type C is always Interpretation Status = Inferred only.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 7 — RESPONSIBILITY ALLOCATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

ALL RESPONSIBILITY HOLDER FIELDS MUST BE CODED. Code 0 if absent.

For each holder: Presence (0/1) | Responsibility assigned (describe) | Evidence | Interpretation Status

  7.01  Developing organization (the authoring body itself)
  7.02  AI system developers (engineers, researchers, product teams)
  7.03  Deploying organization (entity implementing AI)
  7.04  Government / regulatory body
  7.05  Third-party auditors / evaluators
  7.06  End users (individuals interacting with AI)
  7.07  Affected communities / third parties
  7.08  Multi-stakeholder / shared responsibility

7.1 RESPONSIBILITY DISTRIBUTION VS. SHIFTING

Distinguish responsibility distribution from responsibility shifting.
Distributed responsibility is not automatically problematic. Code responsibility shifting
only when burden is moved downward or outward to lower-power actors without corresponding
authority, resources, or recourse.

Responsibility shifting present: YES / NO / UNCERTAIN
Direction of shift (if present): [specify: upward / downward / lateral / outward]
Evidence:
Interpretation status:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 8 — CLAIMED BENEFIT vs. FUNDED / MATERIAL BENEFIT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

For each benefit claim in the source, distinguish:

  Claimed benefit: what the source asserts AI will or does produce.
  Funded / material benefit: what is materially supported by resources, staffing, or infrastructure
                             visible in the source.
  Cost bearer: who bears the implementation cost, risk, or negative externality.
   Value capturer: who captures the primary economic or reputational benefit.

Complete the following:

  8.01  Primary claimed benefits (list):
  8.02  Funded / material benefits (list — distinguish from claims):
  8.03  Claimed benefit not materially supported: YES / NO / PARTIAL [explain]
  8.04  Cost bearer identified: YES / NO / PARTIAL [explain]
  8.05  Value capturer identified: YES / NO / PARTIAL [explain]
  8.06  Gap between claim and material support: NONE / MINOR / SIGNIFICANT / MAJOR [explain]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 9 — EMERGENT CODES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Emergent codes may be listed only if all three criteria are met:

  1. The theme, concept, or frame is substantively present in the source (not merely implied).
  2. It is not already captured by a required field in Sections 3–8.
  3. It appears with sufficient frequency or prominence to warrant independent tracking.

For each emergent code: Label | Description | Evidence | Frequency signal

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 10 — CODER CONFIDENCE AND METHODOLOGICAL NOTES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

  10.01  Overall coder confidence (0.0–1.0):
  10.02  Lowest-confidence field(s):
  10.03  Fields where cap rules or overlap adjudication rules were applied:
  10.04  Fields coded NC / Not Codable (list with reason):
  10.05  Any source-access limitation (truncation, translation, version uncertainty):
  10.06  Recommended for human review: YES / NO
  10.07  Reason for human review flag (if YES):

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 11 — INTERPRETIVE MEMO (OPTIONAL — FOLLOWS TABLES ONLY)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This section is optional. It may contain extended analytical commentary, cross-document
comparisons, theoretical observations, or second-brain notes. It may not replace, contradict,
or substitute for any field in Sections 0–10. If a claim in this memo is not reflected in
the quantitative tables, it is not part of the coding record.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SECTION 12 — FINAL COMPLETION CHECKLIST (REQUIRED)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Complete this checklist at the end of every coding output. Do not submit output without it.

SOURCE MANIFEST
  [ ] Source title verified against manifest.
  [ ] Stable source ID verified against manifest.
  [ ] Authoring body verified against manifest.
  [ ] Date/version verified or discrepancy explicitly flagged.
  [ ] No unassigned source was coded.

METADATA AND SECTOR
  [ ] All metadata fields completed.
  [ ] Sector classification completed using decision tree.
  [ ] Hybrid / Third Sector / Platform Builder special rules applied where relevant and documented.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
  [ ] All ten ethical principles coded: Equity, Accountability, Transparency, Privacy,
      Autonomy, Integrity, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence–Mechanical, Beneficence–Ethical, Justice.
  [ ] Every ethical principle includes presence, intensity, valence, substance type,
      evidence, and explanation.
  [ ] Overlap adjudication rules applied and documented where relevant.
  [ ] Cap rule overrides documented where applied.

INTEGRITY SUBCODES
  [ ] All seven integrity subcodes coded, including absent fields.
  [ ] Domain-specific integrity type identified for each coded subcode.

STRUCTURAL / DISCOURSE
  [ ] All ten structural/discourse function fields coded.
  [ ] Presence coding conservative (only directly stated or strongly supported functions coded as 1).

DPPRA
  [ ] All five DPPRA component fields coded.
  [ ] DPPRA alignment score assigned using revised 0–5 scale.
  [ ] Cap rule applied and documented.
  [ ] Decoupling subtype table completed (all three subtypes).
  [ ] No implementation outcome inferred from advisory, voluntary, or self-authored language
      without direct source evidence.

RESPONSIBILITY ALLOCATION
  [ ] All eight responsibility holder fields coded.
  [ ] Responsibility shifting/distribution distinction applied and documented.

CLAIMED VS. MATERIAL BENEFIT
  [ ] Claimed benefit and funded/material benefit distinguished.
  [ ] Cost bearer and value capturer identified where source permits.

EMERGENT CODES
  [ ] Emergent codes listed only if all three criteria are met.

FORMAT AND EXPORT
  [ ] All ordinal variables include numeric values AND labels.
  [ ] All fields use numeric codes from the codebook.
  [ ] No required field is silently omitted.
  [ ] Output is SPSS-exportable.
  [ ] Interpretive memo follows — and does not replace — structured coding tables.
  [ ] Coder confidence score and human review flag completed.


v2.12 SCORING ANCHORS — GOVERNS ALL *_code SCORING. This block SUPERSEDES any "0-5 ordinal anchors" or bare-range line in the layer prompt's embedded crosswalk ABOVE. Where they conflict on HOW to score, THIS governs (the prompt's key SET still holds; this defines the SCALES + presence gates).

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
v2.12 SCORING ANCHORS — GOVERNS ALL *_code SCORING (READ AND OBEY)
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This block is the v2.12 scoring authority. It SUPERSEDES any "0-5 ordinal
anchors" or bare-range text in the layer prompt's embedded crosswalk above, and
supersedes v2.11/v2.10. Where they conflict on HOW to score, THIS governs. The
injected CANONICAL OUTPUT SCHEMA defines the exact key SET; this block defines the
SCALES, presence gates, and (NEW in v2.12) the CATEGORICAL crosswalk legends.
Emit exactly one integer per *_code field.

NEW IN v2.12 (from the RUN_03 adversarial pass, 2026-06-05; approved 2026-06-08).
v2.12 is ADDITIVE — every Part A–G rule below is carried from v2.11 unchanged. The
fixes target the nominal/categorical fields that dragged the pooled alpha down
WITHOUT touching the eth_* ethical spine (which survived adversarial attack):
  H1. NEW PART H echoes the integer CATEGORICAL CROSSWALK LEGEND verbatim into
      these anchors — the legend used to live only in the schema while the decision
      pressure lived here; they never met. (RUN_03 Finding A/C.)
  H2. The five nominal-but-numeric fields are HARD-FLAGGED as CATEGORICAL: the
      integer names a TYPE, NOT a magnitude. Do NOT read higher = more. This alone
      reverses the highest-leverage RUN_03 error (three readers misread cb_balance
      magnitude into the wrong category). (Finding C.)
  H3. DIFFUSE/COLLECTIVE vs NONE-ASSERTED disambiguated on the actor crosswalk:
      a broad collective ("society", "humanity as a whole") = 6, NOT 0. (Finding B.)
  C+. int_* fires only on a described OPERATIONAL MECHANISM, never rhetorical
      metaphor (see Part C). (Finding G.)
  Process fields (coding_confidence, final_confidence, human_review_flag) are
      EXCLUDED from reliability alpha — coder signature, not document property
      (handled in reliability.py; Finding E). A one-5 CAP machine-check runs at
      intake (Finding D). Neither changes how you code; code normally.

LINEAGE — v2.11 redefined eth_integrity to full construct (Part B), operationalized
the 5 with a proportion gate + two-sided anchors (Part A), dropped the degenerate
presence binaries (Part F), and added mirror calibration. All retained here.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART A — THE 0-5 INTENSITY LADDER (every bare 0-5 field)
Applies to: all eth_*_code, all dppra_*_strength_code, all int_*_intensity_code,
all cb_*_presence_strength_code, cb_cost_intensity_code, cb_benefit_intensity_code.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Score on where the anchor's LITERAL criterion is met — distribution across the
document — not on how important the topic feels. Apply the discriminators
mechanically.

  0  ABSENT      — the dimension is not raised in the text at all.
  1  INCIDENTAL  — appears once, in passing; no elaboration, example, or stake.
  2  MENTIONED   — named/described in >=1 passage but UNDEVELOPED; no mechanism,
                   consequence, or example attached.
  3  DEVELOPED (LOCALIZED) — substantively treated WITH a concrete example,
                   mechanism, or stake, BUT confined to one section or a few
                   adjacent passages; the argument does not keep returning to it.
  4  CENTRAL (DISTRIBUTED) — recurs across MOST major sections and the argument
                   repeatedly returns to it, tied to a mechanism/consequence/
                   recommendation. Removing it would leave several passages
                   unintelligible, BUT the document could be rebuilt around a
                   different spine.
  5  DEFINING (SPINE) — pervasive AND load-bearing: the single organizing logic
                   of the text. Remove it and there is no document, only
                   disconnected fragments; it survives no reframing.
  8  applicable but unclear   ·   9  definitionally not applicable

  THE THREE DISCRIMINATORS (apply in order, mechanically):
   • 2 vs 3 — Is a concrete mechanism / example / stake attached? NO -> 2.
              YES -> at least 3.
   • 3 vs 4 — COUNT the major sections the dimension appears in. One section,
              or a few adjacent passages -> 3. Most major sections, the argument
              keeps returning -> 4.
   • 4 vs 5 — Removal test + PROPORTION GATE (both required for a 5; see below).

  ►► THE 5 IS OPERATIONALIZED (from v2.11 — apply BOTH tests, not a gut call):
     A dimension may be coded 5 ONLY IF:
       (i)  PROPORTION GATE — it is the dominant subject of the BODY by section
            share: it is the leading theme in a PLURALITY of the document's major
            sections (count them), AND no other dimension occupies more. Read the
            BODY distribution, NOT the title, abstract, or a single loud passage.
       (ii) REMOVAL TEST — remove it and the document collapses into disconnected
            fragments; it survives no reframing.
     If (i) fails -> the ceiling is 4, full stop. If a rival dimension ties on
     section share, neither is 5 unless co-equal (see CAP).

  TWO-SIDED ANCHORS — calibrate BOTH ends to the same bar:
   • HIGH (earn the 5): a paper whose entire thesis is that privacy law is broken;
     every major section is about privacy; remove it and nothing remains -> 5.
   • TRAP (looks like 5, is not — TITLE-ANCHORING): a statute titled
     "...Transparency... Act" mentions transparency in the title and intro, but its
     BODY is mostly enforcement duties, impact assessments, and remedies. Section
     share for transparency is one of several, not the plurality -> transparency
     is 4 (distributed), NOT 5. Score the body, never the headline word.
   • COLD MISS (a real 4-or-5 under-coded to 0): "this dimension recurs across the
     intro, methods, risk analysis AND recommendations, each tied to a mechanism"
     is AT LEAST a 4 — do not leave a distributed, load-bearing dimension at 0/1
     because no single passage shouted. Distribution earns the score.

  TIE-BREAKER (center-pull): torn between two adjacent anchors -> code the LOWER
  unless the higher anchor's FULL criterion is explicitly met. (NB: this is a
  symmetric brake — it pulls a HOT read down toward 4 AND tells a COLD read that
  once the full 4-criterion IS met, you must commit to the 4, not retreat to 2.)
  CAP: at most ONE dimension per document may be coded 5, unless two are
  genuinely co-equal on section share — name both in narrative.cap_rule_notes.
  (v2.12: an intake validator machine-checks this cap and verifies cap_rule_notes
   matches the actual count of 5s — so report your 5s honestly in the notes.)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART B — eth_integrity: PRINCIPLED CONSISTENCY + FOLLOW-THROUGH (from v2.11)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
eth_integrity_code — the HEADLINE integrity principle. Integrity is NOT the mere
  knowledge of what is right; it is the ALIGNMENT between an actor's professed
  moral principles/values and its actual or required CONDUCT. Two faces, both count:
    (a) EPISTEMIC HONESTY — truthfulness / accuracy / authenticity / verification
        of knowledge and outputs (the actor is honest about what is true); AND
    (b) PRACTICAL FOLLOW-THROUGH — beliefs, methods, and actions are derived from
        and consistent with a stated moral framework; the actor DOES what its
        principles commit it to. The opposite of integrity is HYPOCRISY /
        decoupling (saying one thing, doing another), not ignorance.

  Code the DEGREE to which the document EMBODIES, DEMANDS, VERIFIES, or EXPOSES
  this principle->action consistency.

  ►► int_* AND decoupling ARE THE EVIDENCE STREAMS (from v2.11) —
     they no longer "route content away from" integrity; they FEED and UNDERCUT it:
       • int_system_tevv  — testing/eval/audit = verifying conduct matches claims
                            (follow-through evidence -> SUPPORTS integrity).
       • int_data_prov    — honesty about data sourcing/consent/lineage
                            (honesty-of-inputs evidence -> SUPPORTS integrity).
       • int_epistemic    — truthfulness/reliability of outputs
                            (epistemic-honesty evidence -> SUPPORTS integrity).
       • int_academic     — learner honesty (supports integrity in education docs).
       • decoupling_signal — a documented say-do gap is the INVERSE: it LOWERS the
                            actor's integrity. (If the document is EXPOSING or
                            CONDEMNING the gap, then integrity-as-DEMAND is high
                            while the actor's integrity is shown FAILING — code the
                            document's stance, and say which in cap_rule_notes.)
     Still score each int_* / decoupling field at its OWN grain (Part A intensity).
     eth_integrity is the holistic headline judgment those streams inform; it is
     NOT a sum of them and NOT capped below its strongest supporting stream.

  GUARDRAIL (keeps integrity from re-becoming a catch-all — the old failure mode):
     • Code eth_integrity >=2 ONLY if the text raises consistency-of-principle-and-
       conduct OR honesty/accuracy of knowledge — not merely because ethics,
       values, or "responsible AI" are discussed. "Serious" / "about AI ethics" is
       NOT integrity.
     • A document that merely STATES values (a values list, a principles preamble)
       with no binding to conduct = LOW integrity signal (1-2).
     • A document that BINDS values to conduct — enforcement, verification,
       audit-with-teeth, follow-through obligations — OR that DOCUMENTS/EXPOSES the
       breach between stated values and practice = HIGH (4-5 if it is the spine).
     • Reserve 5 for documents whose ORGANIZING AXIS is principle<->action
       consistency itself (its honoring, its demand, its verification, or its
       exposure), per the Part A proportion gate + removal test.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART B2 — PRESENCE TRIGGERS for the other gated principles (from v2.10)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
eth_autonomy_code — human self-determination and control.
  Code >=2 ONLY if the text raises human control over decisions, manipulation/
  nudging, dependency/over-reliance/deskilling, OR informed consent. Not present
  merely because humans are discussed.
eth_nonmaleficence_code — direct harm and harm-prevention.
  Code >=2 ONLY if a concrete harm or harm-risk to identifiable parties is named
  (violence, injury, surveillance harm, psychological damage). Generic "risk"
  with no named harm = 1. This is DIRECT harm (vs justice = distributional,
  privacy = data).
eth_justice_code — distributive/procedural fairness, rights, remedy, due process.
  Code >=2 ONLY if the text raises unequal distribution of benefits/burdens across
  groups, rights/remedy/due-process, OR structural fairness.
  DISAMBIGUATION: equity = who gets ACCESS/INCLUSION; justice = fairness of
  DISTRIBUTION + rights/remedy. Access gap -> equity. Unfair outcome / no remedy
  -> justice.
(The other six principles keep v2.7 behavior + Part A for intensity. Privacy's
 implicit trigger: is identifiable data at stake?)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART C — int_* INTEGRITY SUB-DIMENSIONS: scope (each takes Part A for intensity)
CANONICAL SIX (int_institutional DROPPED in v2.8 — do NOT code it).
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  int_academic_*    — academic integrity: honesty OF THE LEARNER (student
                      cheating, plagiarism, contract cheating in education).
  int_research_*    — research integrity: fabrication, falsification, misconduct,
                      reproducibility, p-hacking.
  int_assessment_*  — assessment integrity: whether a FORM OF ASSESSMENT is still
                      productive or definitive; fires when an assessment's validity/
                      usefulness collapses (e.g. an essay AI can write no longer
                      measures learning). The instrument's integrity, not the
                      person's honesty (that is int_academic).
  int_system_tevv_* — system TEVV integrity: whether AI systems are tested,
                      evaluated, validated, verified, audited, benchmarked.
  int_data_prov_*   — data provenance integrity: sourcing, consent, licensing,
                      lineage of data used/trained on (vs privacy = identifiable-
                      person exposure).
  int_epistemic_*   — epistemic integrity: truthfulness/reliability of knowledge,
                      hallucination, misinformation, source verification.

  ►► OPERATIONAL-MECHANISM REQUIREMENT (NEW in v2.12 — RUN_03 Finding G):
     int_system_tevv, int_data_prov, int_epistemic, and surveillance_monitoring
     fire ONLY on a described OPERATIONAL MECHANISM — an actual test/audit/eval, a
     data-lineage/consent/licensing practice, a verification step, or a monitoring
     system. They do NOT fire on rhetorical METAPHOR or evocative imagery
     ("who is being harvested", "ask what you are training", "the machine watches").
     A rhetorical essay that gestures at surveillance without naming a monitoring
     mechanism scores these LOW/0 — code the mechanism, not the mood. (FRM/059:
     Codex read an essay's metaphors as substantive TEVV/data-provenance — do not.)

  RELATION TO eth_integrity (v2.11): these six are the EVIDENCE STREAMS for the
  eth_integrity headline (Part B). Score each at its own grain; eth_integrity is
  the holistic consistency+follow-through judgment they inform, NOT a routing
  destination that empties the headline.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART D — cb_*_evidence_label_code DECISION TREE (from v2.10)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  Is a cost/benefit claim made?                                  no  -> 0 absent
  Backed by data, study, or a cited concrete instance?           yes -> 1 evidence-based
  A future/hypothetical/hoped-for outcome?                       yes -> 2 speculative/aspirational
  Asserted as value/branding with no support or mechanism?       yes -> 3 rhetorical/symbolic
  Between 1 and 2: PAST/PRESENT fact -> 1 ; FUTURE outcome -> 2.
  Between 2 and 3: a mechanism/pathway is described -> 2 ; pure assertion -> 3.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART E — COST/BENEFIT INDICATOR SET (§3E collapse; 19 indicators, from v2.10)
Code ONLY these indicators (0 absent · 1 present · 8 · 9). The cut ones are gone.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
BENEFIT (10): cb_benefit_access_equity_code, cb_benefit_accessibility_assistive_code,
  cb_benefit_efficiency_labor_saving_code, cb_benefit_financial_cost_saving_code,
  cb_benefit_learning_pedagogical_code, cb_benefit_market_profit_code,
  cb_benefit_public_good_code, cb_benefit_quality_accuracy_code (ALSO covers
  AI-assisted integrity/cheating detection), cb_benefit_rights_protection_code,
  cb_benefit_consistency_standardization_code.
  CUT: cb_benefit_institutional_performance_code, cb_benefit_integrity_detection_code.
COST (9): cb_cost_access_inequality_code, cb_cost_compliance_burden_code,
  cb_cost_credential_opportunity_code, cb_cost_financial_code (ALSO covers
  labor/time cost), cb_cost_privacy_data_code, cb_cost_surveillance_control_code,
  cb_cost_environmental_infrastructure_code,
  cb_cost_cognitive_psychological_code (cognitive/learning/psychological harm to
  individuals — absorbs the old cognitive_pedagogical + psychological_social),
  cb_cost_rights_remedy_gap_code — code present ONLY when a SPECIFIC rights/remedy/
  due-process gap is named, NOT on generic fairness language.
  CUT: cb_cost_legitimacy_trust_code, cb_cost_labor_time_code,
  cb_cost_cognitive_pedagogical_code (merged), cb_cost_psychological_social_code
  (renamed -> cb_cost_cognitive_psychological_code).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART F — DEPRECATED PRESENCE BINARIES (from v2.11)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The following presence binaries were ~100% constant across Run-1+Run-2 (no
variance, undefined reliability) and are DROPPED. Presence is now read off the
paired *_strength field: strength 0 = absent, 1-5 = present at that intensity.
  • dppra_d_presence_code, dppra_p1_presence_code, dppra_p2_presence_code,
    dppra_r_presence_code, dppra_a_presence_code
  • cb_cost_presence_binary_code, cb_benefit_presence_binary_code
DO emit the *_strength fields as before. The DPPRA D/P1/P2/R/A structure and the
cost/benefit constructs are UNCHANGED — only the redundant presence flags are gone.
(Schema-compat note: if the injected schema still lists these keys, emit 9 = N/A;
 the compiler treats v2.12 strength as authoritative for presence.)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART G — OUTPUT FORMAT (ALL CODERS — the compiler rejects violations)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
These are hard requirements for every coder, not style preferences. An output that
breaks them is rejected and must be re-run.
  1. PRESERVE UNDERSCORES in every key exactly as in the schema: emit
     `eth_equity_code`, NOT `ethequitycode` / `ethEquityCode` / `eth equity code`.
     Do not strip, camelCase, or collapse separators.
  2. EMIT EVERY KEY in the injected schema, including N/A fields. Cross-layer
     fields that do not apply get 9 (or 99 for assessment_object_code) — never
     silently omit a key.
  3. USE THE v2.12 KEY SET ONLY. Do not resurrect cut keys (cb_cost_labor_time_code,
     cb_benefit_integrity_detection_code, cb_cost_legitimacy_trust_code, the old
     cognitive_pedagogical / psychological_social splits, etc.) and do not emit the
     dropped *_presence binaries (Part F). Emit the *_strength fields.
  4. VALID JSON. Escape every double-quote inside a string value as \". Never leave a
     raw quote inside an array-of-string element (e.g. evidence excerpts) — one
     unescaped quote breaks the whole record.
  5. FLAT BLOCKS: meta / codes / narrative, no grouped sub-objects, no invented
     fields. Exactly one integer per *_code field. Set meta.coder and
     meta.prompt_version = "v2.12".
  6. DO NOT return a metadata-only exclusion when a full source text is attached. If
     the document is present, code it; reserve exclusion for empty/unreadable input.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PART H — CATEGORICAL CROSSWALK LEGEND (verbatim, integer-locked) — NEW in v2.12
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
►►► CATEGORICAL — the integer names a TYPE, not a strength. Do NOT read higher =
    more. Pick the label whose meaning matches the text; if two fit, pick the
    dominant; if none is asserted, use 0; if asserted-but-unclear, use 8. These
    fields are NOT on the Part A 0-5 intensity ladder. ◄◄◄

These legends are integer-locked (carried from DPPRA_v2.8_INTEGER_CROSSWALK_LOCK
and the schema). They are reproduced HERE so the decision pressure and the legend
meet in one place — the single highest-leverage v2.12 fix.

  dominant_value_type_code  (which value-frame organizes the document):
    1 mechanical   — efficiency/automation/technical capability as the point
    2 institutional— org duty, governance, standards, compliance, accountability
    3 market       — profit, competition, commercial positioning, product selling
    4 pedagogical  — teaching/learning value, educational purpose
    5 redistributive— fairness/equity/redistribution of benefits or burdens
    6 humanistic   — intrinsic human dignity, wellbeing, care, flourishing
    8 unclear   ·   9 N/A
    ADJACENT-CATEGORY DISCRIMINATION (2 vs 3 vs 6 — splits most on COR/safety docs):
      • 2 institutional = appeals to organizational duty / governance / standards.
      • 3 market = profit / competition / commercial positioning.
      • 6 humanistic = intrinsic human dignity / wellbeing / care.
      A corporate safety doc grounded in duty-of-care reads 2; a product page
      selling "responsibility" reads 3; a "flourishing/empathy" essay reads 6.

  responsibility_concentration_code  (where accountability sits):
    0 none/not-asserted · 1 concentrated/non-delegable · 2 distributed
    3 diffuse/unclear · 8 · 9

  ACTOR CROSSWALK — cb_primary_cost_bearer_code, cb_primary_material_beneficiary_code,
  cb_primary_value_capturer_code (WHO bears the cost / gets the benefit / captures
  the value):
    0 none      — the dimension is NOT asserted at all
    1 student/learner/applicant
    2 teacher/evaluator/worker
    3 institution/school/employer
    4 platform/vendor/company
    5 government/policymaker
    6 public/community/society
    7 environment/infrastructure
    8 asserted but the actor is genuinely unclear   ·   9 N/A
    DIFFUSE/COLLECTIVE vs NONE (NEW — RUN_03 Finding B):
      • A named BROAD COLLECTIVE ("society", "humanity as a whole", "the public",
        "everyone") = 6 public/community/society — NOT 0.
      • 0 = the cost/benefit dimension is not asserted at all.
      • 8 = a cost/benefit IS asserted but the bearer/beneficiary is unclear.
      (FRM/058: a narrative naming "humanity as a whole" as beneficiary must code 6,
       not 0 — do not zero a diffuse-but-named actor.)

  cb_balance_code  (the net cost/benefit framing — a CATEGORY, not a magnitude):
    0 none · 1 benefits>costs · 2 costs>benefits · 3 mixed/balanced
    4 asymmetric (costs and benefits fall on DIFFERENT parties) · 8 · 9
    WARNING: 4 is NOT "very benefit-heavy". A benefit-heavy page is 1, not 4. Use 4
    ONLY when the costs and benefits accrue to DIFFERENT actors (asymmetric
    distribution). (RUN_03: a benefit-heavy product page is cb_balance=1; coding 4
    by reading "4 = strong" was the single highest-leverage error.)

  cb_distribution_direction_code  (which way value flows):
    0 none · 1 redistributive/public · 2 institutional efficiency
    3 market/platform capture · 4 cost-shift to learners/workers/public
    5 mixed/contested · 8 · 9

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
END v2.12 SCORING ANCHORS
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════


CANONICAL OUTPUT SCHEMA — emit EXACTLY this key set, flat 'codes' block (meta / codes / narrative); do not group, rename, or omit keys.
STRICT KEY COMPLIANCE (all layers): use the key names BELOW verbatim, WITH underscores (e.g. `eth_equity_code`, NOT `ethequitycode`). Do NOT invent fields from the layer prompt's narrative structure (no `resp_*`, no `struct_*`, no per-principle valence/substance, no `*_memo` fields) — code ONLY the keys in this schema. The schema, not the prompt's prose, defines the exact output keys.

{
  "_schema_version": "v2.12",
  "_schema_note": "v2.12 = the v2.11 key set UNCHANGED IN SHAPE (additive guidance only). The categorical legends are echoed into the v2.12 inject Part H and flagged CATEGORICAL (type not magnitude); int_* fires on an operational mechanism not metaphor; confidence/process fields excluded from alpha; one-5 CAP machine-checked at intake. No key added/renamed/removed vs v2.11. See DPPRA_v2.12_CANDIDATE_CHANGES_from_RUN03.md.",
  "_schema_info": {
    "schema_name": "DPPRA_coder_record (all layers)",
    "schema_version": "2.8",
    "defined_by": "claude (canonical reference, per project lead)",
    "purpose": "All coders (claude, gpt, pxy) MUST emit this exact key set so inter-coder reliability can be computed mechanically on the 'codes' block. Do not add, rename, or omit keys. Leave value types as specified. Populate every field; never leave a shared-core code blank.",
    "reliability_layer": "Inter-coder reliability (kappa/alpha) is computed ONLY on the integer fields in 'codes'. valence_* are proportions (0.00-1.00) and are handled separately. The 'narrative' and 'meta' blocks are for human/adversarial validation, not numeric reliability.",
    "missing_value_convention": "0 = applicable but absent/unsupported; 8 = applicable but unclear/insufficient evidence; 9 = definitionally not applicable. Every *_code field contains exactly one integer and nothing else.",
    "v2.8_scoring_authority": "All bare 0-5 fields are now anchored by the v2.8 SCORING ANCHORS block (Part A 0-5 ladder + tie-breaker + CAP; Part B presence triggers for integrity/autonomy/nonmaleficence/justice; Part C int_* scopes; Part D evidence-label tree), injected into every coder paste and embedded in the operational profile. The anchors define the SCALE; this schema defines the KEY SET. Where a bare '0-5 ordinal anchors' line in any embedded crosswalk conflicts, the v2.8 anchors govern.",
    "v2.8_field_set_changes": "v2.8 changes the field SET in two sanctioned places only (the documented exception to the keys-must-not-change guard). (A) §3C int_institutional DROPPED: int_institutional_presence_code + int_institutional_intensity_code REMOVED; org-level stated-values-vs-practice is captured by decoupling_signal_code. Canonical SEVEN integrity sub-dimensions -> SIX (academic, research, assessment, system_tevv, data_prov, epistemic). int_assessment re-scoped to 'a form of assessment no longer productive/definitive' (instrument validity, not learner honesty). (B) §3E cost/benefit indicators 24 -> 19: CUT cb_benefit_institutional_performance_code, cb_cost_legitimacy_trust_code, cb_cost_labor_time_code (degenerate constants, fire on ~90-100% of docs, alpha~0); MERGE cb_cost_cognitive_pedagogical_code -> cb_cost_cognitive_psychological_code (renamed from cb_cost_psychological_social_code, now absorbs cognitive/learning harm); MERGE cb_benefit_integrity_detection_code -> cb_benefit_quality_accuracy_code (now also covers AI-assisted integrity/cheating detection); cb_cost_financial_code now also covers labor/time cost; TIGHTEN cb_cost_rights_remedy_gap_code (present ONLY when a SPECIFIC rights/remedy/due-process gap is named). All OTHER keys hold.",
    "v2.8_leave_alone_fields": "Do NOT re-anchor these reliable v2.7 fields: eth_privacy_code, dppra_p1_strength_code, eth_equity_code, cb_primary_value_capturer_code, dppra_alignment_score_code, cb_benefit_consistency_standardization_code, journal_method_type_code.",
    "RESOLVED_v2.6_crosswalk_lock": "The previously open crosswalks (decoupling_signal_code, market_capture_signal_code, dominant_value_type_code, responsibility_concentration_code, cb_*_evidence_label_code, the cb actor crosswalk, cb_balance_code, cb_distribution_direction_code, and all gov_*_code mappings) are integer-locked in the v2.8 crosswalk lock (carried from DPPRA_v2.6_INTEGER_CROSSWALK_LOCK.md, approved 2026-05-25). All coders MUST use those integers.",
    "RESOLVED_2026-05-27_JRN_domain_lock": "The six journal_*_code fields are integer-locked in DPPRA_JRN_INTEGER_CROSSWALK_LOCK_v2.7.md (approved 2026-05-27). JRN coders code them per that lock; GOV/FRM/INS code them 9 (definitionally N/A), exactly as journal coders code the gov_* fields 9.",
    "RESOLVED_2026-05-27_FRM_domain_lock": "The eight forum domain fields (learner_posture, assessment_object, external_link_boundary, detection_verification presence+strength, surveillance_monitoring presence+strength, overall_dominant_valence) are integer-locked in DPPRA_FRM_INTEGER_CROSSWALK_LOCK_v2.7.md (approved 2026-05-27). FRM coders code them per that lock; non-forum layers code 9 (assessment_object: 99). NOTE assessment_object_code uses 88=unclear/99=N/A (8 and 9 are real categories). INS domain-specific fields remain to be locked at that layer's first run."
  },
  "meta": {
    "stable_source_id": "string (assigned by manifest)",
    "document_id": "string",
    "title": "string (exact)",
    "authoring_body": "string",
    "date": "string YYYY-MM-DD",
    "domain": "string",
    "domain_code": "int (1=gov/legal/regulatory, 2=journal, 3=forum, 4=institutional/corporate) [LOCK]",
    "subdomain": "string",
    "time_segment": "string",
    "corpus_batch": "string",
    "source_type": "string",
    "jurisdiction": "string",
    "intended_audience": "string",
    "regulated_actors": "string",
    "coder": "string: one of [claude, codex, gemini]",
    "prompt_version": "string",
    "coding_date": "string YYYY-MM-DD",
    "text_access": "string: Full|Partial|Metadata-only|Navigation-only|Extraction-failed",
    "text_access_code": "int (1=Full, 2=Partial, 3=Metadata-only, 4=Navigation-only, 5=Extraction-failed) [LOCK]",
    "manifest_match_confirmed": "string: YES|NO|DISCREPANCY[explain]"
  },
  "codes": {
    "_principle_intensity_range": "0-5 per v2.8 SCORING ANCHORS Part A ladder (0 absent,1 incidental,2 mentioned,3 developed,4 central,5 defining); 8 unclear; 9 N/A. CAP: at most one 5 per document unless co-equal (name both in cap_rule_notes).",
    "coding_confidence_code": "int 0-5",
    "final_confidence_code": "int 0-5",
    "human_review_flag_code": "int 0=no review needed, 1=review recommended",
    "eth_equity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [LEAVE-ALONE: reliable v2.7 field; Part A ladder]",
    "eth_accountability_code": "int 0-5|8|9",
    "eth_transparency_code": "int 0-5|8|9",
    "eth_privacy_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [LEAVE-ALONE: reliable v2.7 field; implicit trigger: is identifiable data at stake?]",
    "eth_autonomy_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part B trigger: human control/manipulation/dependency/consent]",
    "eth_integrity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part B trigger: accuracy/authenticity/verification of knowledge]",
    "eth_nonmaleficence_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part B trigger: named concrete harm to identifiable parties]",
    "eth_beneficence_mech_code": "int 0-5|8|9",
    "eth_beneficence_eth_code": "int 0-5|8|9",
    "eth_justice_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part B trigger: distribution/rights/remedy; access gap->equity, unfair outcome/no remedy->justice]",
    "valence_positive": "float 0.00-1.00 (positive+neutral+negative should sum to 1.00 when codable)",
    "valence_neutral_mixed": "float 0.00-1.00",
    "valence_negative": "float 0.00-1.00",
    "dppra_d_strength_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "dppra_p1_strength_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [LEAVE-ALONE: reliable v2.7 field; Part A ladder]",
    "dppra_p2_strength_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "dppra_r_strength_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "dppra_a_strength_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "dppra_alignment_score_code": "int 0-5|8|9 (0 none,1 symbolic,2 procedural,3 operational,4 material/substantive,5 verified substantive) [LEAVE-ALONE: reliable v2.7 field, keeps its own anchors]",
    "decoupling_signal_code": "int [LOCK crosswalk] 0=none,1=low,2=low-moderate,3=moderate,4=high,8=unclear,9=N/A (now also carries org-level stated-values-vs-practice, the dropped int_institutional concept)",
    "market_capture_signal_code": "int [LOCK crosswalk] 0=none,1=low,2=moderate,3=high,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "dominant_value_type_code": "int [LOCK crosswalk] 1=mechanical,2=institutional,3=market,4=pedagogical,5=redistributive,6=humanistic,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "responsibility_concentration_code": "int [LOCK crosswalk] 0=none,1=concentrated/non-delegable,2=distributed,3=diffuse/unclear,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "int_academic_presence_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [scope: honesty OF THE LEARNER - student cheating/plagiarism/contract cheating]",
    "int_academic_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "int_research_presence_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [scope: fabrication/falsification/misconduct/reproducibility/p-hacking]",
    "int_research_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "int_assessment_presence_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [scope: a FORM OF ASSESSMENT no longer productive/definitive - instrument validity, not learner honesty]",
    "int_assessment_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "int_system_tevv_presence_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [scope: AI tested/evaluated/validated/verified/audited/benchmarked]",
    "int_system_tevv_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "int_data_prov_presence_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [scope: sourcing/consent/licensing/lineage of data used/trained on]",
    "int_data_prov_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "int_epistemic_presence_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [scope: truthfulness/reliability of knowledge, hallucination, misinformation, source verification]",
    "int_epistemic_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "cb_cost_presence_strength_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "cb_benefit_presence_strength_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "cb_cost_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "cb_benefit_intensity_code": "int 0-5|8|9 [Part A ladder]",
    "cb_cost_evidence_label_code": "int [Part D tree] 0=absent,1=evidence-based,2=speculative/aspirational,3=rhetorical/symbolic,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "cb_benefit_evidence_label_code": "int [Part D tree] same as cb_cost_evidence_label_code",
    "cb_primary_cost_bearer_code": "int actor crosswalk 0-9 (0 none,1 student/learner/applicant,2 teacher/evaluator/worker,3 institution/school/employer,4 platform/vendor/company,5 government/policymaker,6 public/community/society,7 environment/infrastructure,8 unclear,9 N/A)",
    "cb_primary_material_beneficiary_code": "int actor crosswalk 0-9",
    "cb_primary_value_capturer_code": "int actor crosswalk 0-9 [LEAVE-ALONE: reliable v2.7 field]",
    "cb_balance_code": "int 0 none,1 benefits>costs,2 costs>benefits,3 mixed/balanced,4 asymmetric,8 unclear,9 N/A",
    "cb_distribution_direction_code": "int 0 none,1 redistributive/public,2 institutional efficiency,3 market/platform capture,4 cost shift to learners/workers/public,5 mixed/contested,8 unclear,9 N/A",
    "cb_cost_financial_code": "int 0|1|8|9 (NOW ALSO covers labor/time cost - absorbed the cut cb_cost_labor_time)",
    "cb_cost_cognitive_psychological_code": "int 0|1|8|9 (cognitive/learning/psychological harm to individuals - merged cb_cost_cognitive_pedagogical + renamed from cb_cost_psychological_social)",
    "cb_cost_credential_opportunity_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_cost_privacy_data_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_cost_surveillance_control_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_cost_access_inequality_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_cost_environmental_infrastructure_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_cost_compliance_burden_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_cost_rights_remedy_gap_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [TIGHTENED: present ONLY when a SPECIFIC rights/remedy/due-process gap is named, NOT on generic fairness language]",
    "cb_benefit_learning_pedagogical_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_benefit_efficiency_labor_saving_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_benefit_financial_cost_saving_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_benefit_access_equity_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_benefit_quality_accuracy_code": "int 0|1|8|9 (NOW ALSO covers AI-assisted integrity/cheating detection - absorbed the cut cb_benefit_integrity_detection)",
    "cb_benefit_consistency_standardization_code": "int 0|1|8|9 [LEAVE-ALONE: reliable v2.7 field]",
    "cb_benefit_market_profit_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_benefit_public_good_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_benefit_accessibility_assistive_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "cb_benefit_rights_protection_code": "int 0|1|8|9",
    "gov_binding_status_code": "int [LOCK] 0=nonbinding,1=binding,2=partial/mixed,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "gov_enforcement_density_code": "int 0 none,1 weak/indirect,2 single strong or multiple weak,3 multi-level architecture,8 unclear,9 N/A",
    "gov_fria_present_code": "int [LOCK] 0=no,1=yes,2=partial,9=N/A",
    "gov_opensource_carveout_code": "int [LOCK] 0=no,1=yes,2=partial,9=N/A",
    "gov_sector_carveout_code": "int [LOCK] 0=no,1=yes,2=partial,9=N/A",
    "gov_standards_displacement_code": "int [LOCK] 0=absent,1=present,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "gov_remedy_present_code": "int [LOCK] 0=no,1=yes (administrative),2=yes (justiciable/external),8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "gov_sanction_present_code": "int [LOCK] 0=no external sanction,1=external sanction present,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "gov_compliance_mechanism_code": "int [LOCK] 0=absent,1=present,8=unclear,9=N/A",
    "journal_source_type_code": "int [JRN LOCK v2.7] 1=empirical,2=conceptual,3=review,4=theoretical,5=methodological,6=policy-oriented,7=mixed,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-journal layers code 9)",
    "journal_empirical_basis_binary_code": "int [JRN LOCK v2.7] 0=no empirical basis,1=has empirical basis,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-journal layers code 9)",
    "journal_method_type_code": "int [JRN LOCK v2.7] 0=none/non-empirical,1=quantitative,2=qualitative,3=mixed-methods,4=conceptual/theoretical,5=review/meta-analysis,6=computational/simulation,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-journal layers code 9) [LEAVE-ALONE: reliable v2.7 field]",
    "journal_method_evidence_label_code": "int [JRN LOCK v2.7] 0=absent,1=empirical,2=experiential/anecdotal,3=theoretical,4=speculative/prospective,5=rhetorical/promotional,6=mixed,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-journal layers code 9)",
    "journal_evidence_quality_strength_code": "int [JRN LOCK v2.7] 0=absent,2=weak,3=moderate,5=strong,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-journal layers code 9)",
    "journal_level_of_analysis_code": "int [JRN LOCK v2.7] 0=other/emergent,1=classroom,2=institution,3=platform,4=state,5=labor market,6=public sphere,7=social structure,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-journal layers code 9)",
    "learner_posture_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 1=AI-as-tutor,2=shortcut,3=collaborator,4=replacement-thinker,5=assistive-scaffold,6=cheating-mechanism,7=mixed,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-forum layers code 9)",
    "assessment_object_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 0=none,1=essay,2=exam,3=grade,4=degree,5=classroom-assignment,6=admission,7=scholarship,8=job-application,9=research-funding,10=professional-credential,11=legal-document,12=curriculum,13=public-infrastructure,14=labor-system,15=governance-process,16=other; 88=unclear,99=N/A (SPECIAL missing codes; non-forum layers code 99)",
    "external_link_boundary_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 0=no external object,1=referenced & included in coded text,2=referenced but NOT included,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-forum layers code 9)",
    "detection_verification_presence_binary_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 0=absent,1=present,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-forum layers code 9)",
    "detection_verification_presence_strength_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 0-5,8,9 (non-forum layers code 9) [Part A ladder]",
    "surveillance_monitoring_presence_binary_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 0=absent,1=present,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-forum layers code 9)",
    "surveillance_monitoring_presence_strength_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 0-5,8,9 (non-forum layers code 9) [Part A ladder]",
    "overall_dominant_valence_code": "int [FRM LOCK v2.7] 1=positive,2=neutral/mixed,3=negative,4=contradictory/polarized,8=unclear,9=N/A (non-forum layers code 9)"
  },
  "narrative": {
    "brief_summary": "string 150-250 words",
    "major_argument": "string",
    "primary_ethical_conflict": "string",
    "responsibility_attribution": "string",
    "institutional_framing": "string",
    "temporal_orientation": "string",
    "stakeholder_orientation": "string",
    "enforcement_density_rationale": "string",
    "alignment_justification": "string: explain why not one point higher and not one point lower",
    "cap_rule_notes": "string: justify any 5s; state 'CAP OVERRIDE - [rule] - evidence: [quote]' if a cap is overridden",
    "evidence_excerpts": "array of 5-8 strings (short paraphrase or <15-word quote), each with why it matters",
    "emergent_codes": "array of strings",
    "theory_links": "string (evidence-supported only; do not force)",
    "methodological_caution": "string (if Partial access, state how it affects interpretation)",
    "future_use_tag": "string of hashtags",
    "reconciliation_flags": "array of strings: anticipated inter-coder disagreement points and any inferred crosswalks used"
  }
}
