Example: Sub-Claim Decomposition in Editorial Synthesis (§F.3.2 partial-evidence trap)
This example shows the editorial synthesizer's Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 5 flow on a compound weakness — the case the §F.3.2 partial-evidence trap exists to catch — and contrasts the old bundle-level aggregation (which buries a minority sub-claim) with the sub-claim decomposition introduced for #214.
It is a focused illustration of one weakness bundle, not a full Phase 0–2 walkthrough (see hei_paper_review_example.md for that).
In the machine-shaped excerpts below, the stable serialized reviewer ID EIC maps to the public display role Journal-Fit Reviewer.
The input: what the 4 reviewers said about one weakness area
The paper reports a multi-site mixed-effects analysis. Three reviewers raised concerns that look like "one statistics weakness" but are actually two distinct claims:
- R1 (Methodology), Severity: Major, Confidence 5 (anchors:
absence: §3 Methods — expected the random-effects grouping factor; checked §3 Methods, §4 Results/table: Table 3 standardized betas vs Table 4 raw coefficients, no key; competence: core expertise — multi-site mixed-effects design): "Two problems. First, the statistical reporting is inconsistent — Table 3 gives standardized betas, Table 4 raw coefficients, with no key. Second, the mixed-model random-effects grouping is never specified: are sites or participants the grouping factor?" - R2 (Domain), Severity: Major, Confidence 4 (anchor:
absence: §3 Methods — expected the grouping variable; checked §3 Methods; competence: core expertise — quantitative methods in the domain): "I agree the random-effects structure is unclear — the paper doesn't say what the grouping variable is." - R3 (Cross-disciplinary), Severity: Major, Confidence 3 (anchor:
table: Tables 3–4 — units shift between tables, no key; competence: adjacent — reporting clarity, not mixed-model design): "The reporting tables were hard to follow; the units shift between tables." - EIC, Confidence 4: Did not comment on the statistics specifically.
Atomicity note (#574 A2/A3): R1's card bundles two sub-claims into ONE weakness — a fully-conformant current-format card would have emitted them as two separate atomic weaknesses, each with its own single
evidence_anchorobject (Schema 6). Step 1b decomposition is the synthesizer's guard for bundles that still arrive; the two parenthetical anchors above are the bundle's internal evidence, and the transport rows below carry each sub-claim's own anchor.
❌ Old behavior — bundle-level aggregation (the trap)
The Step 1 inventory collapses this into a single Key Weaknesses cell ("statistics problems"), and Step 2 reaches one consensus verdict on the bundle:
[CONSENSUS-3] Statistics problems — R1, R2, R3 agree; EIC silent. Author must fix.
What went wrong: the bundle holds two sub-claims with different support levels, and the verdict averages them into one. "Random-effects grouping unspecified" was raised by R1 and corroborated by R2 — a genuine 2-reviewer consensus. "Inconsistent reporting units" was raised by R1 and R3 but is a different defect. Folding both into one "[CONSENSUS-3]" item produces a single roadmap line that lets the author treat the whole thing as one fix, and the precise grouping-factor defect can be lost inside a vague "clean up the statistics" instruction. Partial support read as full resolution.
✅ New behavior — Step 1b sub-claim inventory, then per-sub-claim consensus
Step 1b — Weakness Sub-Claim Inventory
| sub_claim_id | parent_weakness | reviewer_id | position | evidence_pointer | severity | confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC-1 | Statistics | R1 | raised | absence: §3 Methods — expected the random-effects grouping factor; checked §3, §4 |
major | 5 |
| SC-1 | Statistics | R2 | corroborated | absence: §3 Methods — expected the grouping variable; checked §3 Methods |
major | 4 |
| SC-1 | Statistics | R3 | not-mentioned | — | — | — |
| SC-1 | Statistics | EIC | not-mentioned | — | — | — |
| SC-2 | Statistics | R1 | raised | table: Table 3 standardized betas vs Table 4 raw coefficients, no key |
major | 5 |
| SC-2 | Statistics | R3 | corroborated | table: Tables 3–4 — units shift between tables, no key |
major | 3 |
| SC-2 | Statistics | R2 | not-mentioned | — | — | — |
| SC-2 | Statistics | EIC | not-mentioned | — | — | — |
Two atomic sub-claims fall out of the one "statistics" bundle. not-mentioned is recorded as silence, not opposition. Note the severity column: both R1 rows carry the SAME transported severity — they decompose from R1's one "Statistics" weakness, whose single per-finding Severity is inherited by every sub-claim split from it (#574 A3); a severity difference between sub-claims requires different parent weaknesses, never re-rating.
Step 2 — consensus per sub_claim (denominator = 4 non-DA reviewers)
- SC-1 (random-effects grouping unspecified):
agree = 2(R1 raised, R2 corroborated),conflict = 0,silent = 2(R3, EIC). Two agree, none conflict → a corroborated finding (below the CONSENSUS-3 bar of 3/4), action-bearing because two anchored reviewer rows identify the same major methods defect. Confidence remains uncertainty/scope metadata and does not prioritize the finding. Not a CONSENSUS-3/4 label; not a SPLIT. - SC-2 (inconsistent reporting units):
agree = 2(R1 raised, R3 corroborated),conflict = 0,silent = 2(R2, EIC) → a corroborated finding because two exact table anchors identify the same reporting defect. Confidence remains uncertainty/scope metadata and does not prioritize the finding. Not a SPLIT.
Note the threshold discipline: even though every reviewer who spoke agreed, neither sub-claim is promoted to CONSENSUS-4 — the consensus denominator is the four non-DA scoring reviewers, not the 2 who spoke, so 2/4 is a corroborated finding, not unanimity. This is exactly the mislabel the absolute-count rule prevents.
Neither sub-claim triggers Journal-Fit Reviewer arbitration — there is no disputed position anywhere, so finer granularity did not manufacture arbitration load. (Had R2 instead written "the grouping is clearly by site, this is a non-issue," SC-1 would carry a disputed position against R1's raised, and then it would be a genuine SPLIT requiring Journal-Fit Reviewer arbitration.)
Step 5 — Revision Roadmap (sub-claim-keyed)
Instead of one blurred "fix the statistics" line, two separately-prioritized, traceable items:
Priority 1 — Structural (Must Fix)
- [SC-1] Specify the mixed-model random-effects grouping factor (sites vs participants) and re-state the model. Severity: major (transported) | Anchor:
absence: §3 Methods — expected the random-effects grouping factor; checked §3 Methods, §4 Results(transported) | Raised R1 (conf 5), corroborated R2 (conf 4).Priority 2 — Content Supplementation (Should Fix)
- [SC-2] Standardize coefficient reporting across Tables 3–4 (one convention + a key). Severity: major (transported) | Anchor:
table: Table 3 standardized betas vs Table 4 raw coefficients, no key(transported) | Raised R1 (conf 5), corroborated R3 (conf 3).
Each item carries its sub_claim_id, traces back to the Step 1b inventory, and flows forward into academic-paper revision mode unchanged in format. The minority-risk sub-claim (the grouping factor) is now its own Priority-1 item rather than buried in a bundle.
What this example demonstrates (acceptance for #214)
- Step 1b inventory with
sub_claimas the primary key, alongside the retained Step 1a summary matrix. - Per-sub-claim consensus in Step 2, with
not-mentionedcorrectly excluded from both consensus and SPLIT counting. - SPLIT bound respected — no arbitration is triggered absent an explicit conflicting position (the parenthetical shows what would trigger one).
- Revision Roadmap at sub-claim granularity — the compound weakness yields two correctly-prioritized, traceable items instead of one.
- DA-CRITICAL flow and the v3.6.2 sprint-contract arithmetic path are untouched (neither appears in this general-protocol example).