Project Red Team audit pack release check

Subject: Regional Sports and Events Complex — Economic Impact (free-data path) :root { --ink: #1a1d21; --ink-soft: #4a5158; --ink-faint: #8b939b; --p
Release safety: not release-safe
Audit reading: release status not release-safe; 122 claims inventoried; 3 evidence items not found; 1 finding contradicted by the document; 0 reading limits on the file; 130 evidence observations.

PASS source file hashed: 3f30c7ac85181e3f44508990e29e4eeb2672634c173662c3e9a2f59a4f868f1a
PASS source status recorded: audit-safe
     A source's state is not support for a number. Whether this study could reach a source (route ready), whether the source answered when something asked it (endpoint answered), and how much of a submitted file could be read are facts about a configuration, a publisher and a document. A figure is supported only where a reading pulled into the evidence record carries it, with its own claim, vintage and consequence.
PASS claims inventoried: 122
PASS checks run: 9
PASS evidence observations emitted: 130
PASS expected-evidence items emitted: 3 (3 not found in the document, 0 a limit on how much of the file could be read)

WHAT IS HOLDING THIS DOCUMENT AT NOT RELEASE-SAFE, NAMED:

  SUPPORT THE DETECTOR DID NOT MATCH IN THE SUBMITTED DOCUMENT (3):
  These are misses by our detector, not absences in the study. Each closes the moment somebody points at the passage.
    [not found] Whether the tax figure is a net gain to the public purse
        Our detector did not match this in the document as submitted: Public service costs, abatements, incentives, or other cost-side fiscal evidence.
        consequence: Gross tax revenue may be mistaken for net fiscal benefit.
        what would close it: Point the audit at public service costs, abatements, incentives, or other cost-side fiscal evidence in the full report.
    [not found] Whether the study says which year's model and which year's dollars it used
        Our detector did not match this in the document as submitted: Model year or data year.
        consequence: Model structure may not match the spending period.
        what would close it: Point the audit at model year or data year in the full report.
    [not found] Whether the tax figure is gross collections or money this jurisdiction keeps
        Our detector did not match this in the document as submitted: Gross-vs-net tax treatment and retention/abatement assumptions.
        consequence: A gross tax collection can be mistaken for fiscal benefit to the decision maker.
        what would close it: Point the audit at gross-vs-net tax treatment and retention/abatement assumptions in the full report.

NOT FOUND (3): the detector did not match these. That is a miss, not proof of absence.
  - Whether the tax figure is a net gain to the public purse: Our detector did not match this in the document as submitted: Public service costs, abatements, incentives, or other cost-side fiscal evidence.
  - Whether the study says which year's model and which year's dollars it used: Our detector did not match this in the document as submitted: Model year or data year.
  - Whether the tax figure is gross collections or money this jurisdiction keeps: Our detector did not match this in the document as submitted: Gross-vs-net tax treatment and retention/abatement assumptions.
CONTRADICTED (1): these rest on text the document contains.
  - Whether the survey behind the spending figure carries the weight put on it: Survey response coverage appears weak.

Detector mode: learned model plus rules
Detector limits: Measured on the shipped audit predicate (rules/exemplar scorer plus the learned detector), on 3 held-out studies chosen by document hash: finds 76% of labelled qualifications. On the representative held-out sample it flagged 14 sentences and 6 were false positives, so about 4 in 10 flags were not qualifications; pooling the exhaustive positive-find pass with that sample gives 82% precision, which is useful but too flattering as a field-rate estimate. Observed document recalls ranged 67%-87%, but the intervals overlap; current evidence does not prove recall varies by house style. Cross-study comparison therefore needs the same extraction basis and a rank-stability check, not just raw counts.
Comparison rule: A count in this pack may be set against another study's count only where three things hold: both were extracted on the same basis, the detector's measured error is printed beside both, and the ordering survives resampling. Where the ordering does not survive, we publish the band and the reason for it instead of a rank.
WARN audit is not release-safe; board-facing claims should not travel yet