# DPPRA/ICST coding instrument — published with the SAMYRAD statistical addendum # instrument version : v2.12 # run : RUN_04 # sector (layer) : INS # coder : Claude # packets verified : 14 (this block is byte-identical in every one) # sha256 of block : 4381cf7a4b482d25bf8e7acc8ca3c44285aa58c1cad6a17e63df35a534559e3f # source pattern : 00_ROUTING/_RUN_04_v2.12_batch/Claude/SRC_*__{SECTOR}__Claude_v212.txt # corpus text : OMITTED — the packet continues with the source document after this block # ============================================================================== 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" } } CODER-SPECIFIC WATCHOUT — applies to Claude ONLY (calibration; obey it). Set meta.coder = "claude". # Coder Calibration Watchout — Claude (v2.12) Neutral calibration guidance for this coder. Apply where text-grounded; it does not override the source or the schema. ## Mirror calibration — YOUR POLE: UNDER-COMMIT (cold) The Run-2 three-coder data shows a measured pattern: **you code too few 5s and you floor distributed dimensions.** You assigned ZERO spine-5s on 16 of 22 documents where a distributed, load-bearing dimension was present. The cold pole is as much a reliability error as the hot pole — this watchout medicates it. The medication is symmetric with the bar, NOT a license to inflate: - When the v2.11 PROPORTION GATE **and** the removal test are BOTH met, **commit to the 5.** Do not retreat to 3/4 out of caution. The standard is the standard. - When a dimension recurs across most major sections, each tied to a mechanism/consequence, that is **at least a 4** — do not leave it at 0/1/2 because no single passage shouted. **Distribution earns the score.** - The center-pull tie-breaker is two-way: it pulls a hot read DOWN, but it also says that once the FULL 4-criterion IS met, you commit to the 4 — you do not retreat to 2. You are NOT being asked to find a 5 on every doc (that is Codex's error). Apply the gate honestly in BOTH directions. ## HEATING ADDENDUM — top-code commitment rules (Claude self-authored, 2026-06-04; mirror of Codex's cooling) Claude has a measured tendency to under-recognize developed principles and round intensity DOWN — zero spine-5s on 16/22 documents and distributed dimensions floored to 1-2. To correct this, apply the following commitment rules before finalizing any score. They raise you TO the gate-defined standard, never above it. 1. **Genuine recurrence is sufficient for a 4.** If a principle recurs across most major sections, each tied to a mechanism, consequence, or example, code it 4 — do not floor it to 2-3 because no single passage is emphatic. Distribution earns the score. 2. **Commit to the 5 when the document is built on the construct.** When one construct passes the proportion gate (leading theme in a plurality of major sections) AND the removal test, assign 5 — do not refuse it out of caution. Most review documents have exactly one structural 5 (often dppra_d); a substantively-spined document earns its 5. Coding ZERO 5s on a document with a clear organizing logic is itself an error. 3. **Before assigning a 1 or 2 to a theme that runs through the argument, ask:** would a fair coder agree this is barely developed? If the theme is actually woven across sections with mechanisms, 4 is the floor, not the ceiling. 4. **Do not under-read operational documents.** For statutes, frameworks, standards, and governance docs that specify binding duties, enforcement, audits, or role-specific obligations, the relevant principles are usually 4-5. A concrete, repeated mechanism warrants commitment upward, not conservative rounding. 5. **Do not collapse co-developed constructs.** If two neighboring constructs are BOTH substantially developed across the document, code each at its warranted level — do not reflexively drop the secondary one to keep things low. (Mirror of Codex's no-stacking: don't over-MERGE when both are independently load-bearing.) 6. **Credit enacted governance at full strength.** When a document does more than gesture — it names binding duties, institutional mechanisms, enforcement, audits, remedies, role-specific obligations — code the accountability/governance dimensions 4-5, not 2-3. (Reserve 2-3 for "regulation is needed" aspiration; commit higher for specified mechanism.) 7. **Do not let conservatism substitute for evidence.** Do not lower a score merely because you are uncertain, the source is self-authored, or it is non-empirical. Code what the text develops; a sustained, specific construct earns its strength even in a review or advocacy piece. 8. **Reach 4 for strong distributed treatment.** 3 is for localized/one-section treatment; 4 is for a dimension that recurs across most sections with mechanisms. When the 4 criterion is met, code 4 — do not settle at 3 because the dimension isn't the single spine. 9. **Default genuinely-supported scores upward.** Between 3 and 4, choose 4 when the dimension recurs across most sections tied to mechanisms. Between 1 and 2, choose 2 when the principle is genuinely raised with a stake (not merely adjacent to the topic). 10. **Final cold-coder check.** Before output, scan all 0s, 1s, and 2s, plus every dimension you held at 3 or 4 where 5 was plausible. For each principle the document clearly develops with a mechanism or recurring thread, require a concrete reason it is NOT one level higher. If the only reason is "it's not the main point," "I'm being cautious," or "I didn't want to over-code," raise it by one level. > NB (anti-overcorrection): these push you UP to the gate-defined standard, NOT past it into Codex's hot errors. A dimension merely MENTIONED once is still 1-2 — thematic name-dropping is not a 4, and the proportion gate still governs the 5. Heating means committing to the score the text earns, not inflating beyond it. You and Codex are converging on the same anchor from opposite poles. ## eth_integrity (v2.11 — REDEFINED, read carefully) Integrity is **principled consistency + follow-through**, not knowledge-honesty only. It is the alignment between professed values and actual/required conduct: (a) epistemic honesty AND (b) practical follow-through. The opposite of integrity is hypocrisy/decoupling, not ignorance. - int_* and decoupling_signal are **evidence streams** that FEED (int_*) and UNDERCUT (decoupling) the eth_integrity headline. They are NOT "route content away, leave the headline empty." That v2.10 rule is **retired.** - Do NOT floor eth_integrity to 1-2 just because the integrity content is system-TEVV. Testing IS follow-through evidence; a document organized around binding values to verified conduct can carry a high eth_integrity. - Guardrail still holds: a doc that merely STATES values = low (1-2); a doc that BINDS values to conduct or EXPOSES the say-do breach = high. "About AI ethics" is still not integrity. ## Schema fidelity (your standing main watchout) Your main historical risk is schema drift: replacing required project categories with an alternate taxonomy. **Use the project schema exactly, even if another taxonomy seems analytically better.** Integrity sub-dimensions — use ONLY the canonical SIX (int_institutional was DROPPED in v2.8; do not code it or a 7th "Institutional/Organizational Integrity"): 1. Academic Integrity (int_academic) 2. Research Integrity (int_research) 3. Assessment Integrity (int_assessment) 4. System Integrity / TEVV (int_system_tevv) 5. Data / Provenance Integrity (int_data_prov) 6. Epistemic Integrity (int_epistemic) Do not substitute alternate categories (Data Integrity, Algorithmic Integrity, Process Integrity, Value Integrity, Fiduciary Integrity). Those may appear in prose, never as coded fields. DPPRA components are exactly D / P1 / P2 / R / A — do not rename them. (v2.12: emit the *_strength fields; the *_presence binaries are dropped — see inject Part F. Set `meta.prompt_version = "v2.12"`.) ## Assessment Integrity boundary Do not code general model testing, benchmarking, red teaming, or TEVV as Assessment Integrity. Model testing = System/TEVV; truthfulness/hallucinations/citations = Epistemic; source grounding/data lineage = Data/Provenance. Assessment Integrity is for grading, credentialing, test validity, scoring fairness. ## Justice vs. Equity Do not inflate Justice because a source discusses equity, inclusion, accessibility, bias mitigation, diversity, or access. Use Equity for access/inclusion/bias-mitigation/accessibility/digital-divide. Raise Justice above 2 only for rights, due process, contestability, appeal, remedy, redress, anti-discrimination enforcement, structural inequality, burden/benefit distribution, labor justice, democratic harms, or legal protections. ## Compliance framing Do not code Compliance Framing as present merely because a source discusses policy, governance, standards, or recommendations. It is present when conduct is substantially framed around legal compliance, regulatory obligations, enforceable internal policies, acceptable-use rules, contractual duties, formal pledges, required procedures, or auditable obligations. ## FIELD-FAMILY CALIBRATION (NEW v2.12 — RUN_03 Findings F/G) Your calibration is **field-family-specific, not one global temperature.** The heating addendum above is for the ORDINAL 0-5 intensities (`eth_*`, `dppra_*_strength`, `int_*_intensity`) — there you under-commit, so commit up to the gate. But RUN_03 found you flip the OTHER way on two families: 1. **FRM cost/benefit ATTRIBUTION (SRC_000057):** on the `cb_primary_*` actor crosswalk, `cb_balance`, and `cb_distribution_direction` you run **hot / mis-anchored** — the opposite of your ordinal coldness. Do NOT "heat" these. They are CATEGORICAL (inject Part H): the integer is a TYPE, not a magnitude. Pick the label that matches; `cb_balance = 4` is **asymmetric** (different parties bear cost vs benefit), not "benefit-heavy" (= 1). 2. **Text-access artifacts (INS/051):** some of your "cold" reads were **unread-content artifacts**, not true under-coding — you coded `text_access = Partial` and the missing content read as absence. Record `text_access` honestly in meta; if Partial, say so in `methodological_caution`, and do not let unreachable content masquerade as a low score. Cross-coder comparison is only valid among equal-access codings. ## CATEGORICAL FIELDS ARE TYPES, NOT MAGNITUDES (v2.12 inject Part H) For `dominant_value_type`, the actor crosswalk, `cb_balance`, `cb_distribution_direction`, and `responsibility_concentration`: the integer names a **category**, not a strength — these are NOT on the 0-5 ladder, so your heating rules do not apply to them. A named broad collective ("society", "humanity as a whole") = `6`, not 0; use 0 only when the dimension is not asserted at all.