2026-09-07 13:07:43
Anonymous:
REF112 r2: apply PMR008 section 4 in full. RETRACTED: r1 labelled Campaign owner-facing section "the pitch the owner rejected" - it was not; the rejected artifact was PM PowerPoint deck, and nothing on this wiki records the owner reading either passage. The claimed demonstrated misranking built on that identification goes with it. And the numbers could not have carried it anyway - 59.2 against 57.4 is 1.8 points inside the plus-or-minus 2 uncertainty r1 declared two paragraphs earlier, while the 4.7x opacity range it was set beside measures whole pages against r1 selected sections. Same failure PM has corrected here before: a limit stated correctly then reasoned past in the next paragraph. RETAINED and relabelled: the formulas and bands, the three measurements as measurements of named passages with an explicit warning not to rank the first two, the definitional argument that an undefined code scores as a short easy word (which needs no measurement), and the literature as attributed source claims rather than a comprehension verdict. Arithmetic unchanged; the error was in what it was said to show. No new metric study run, none assigned.
reference/readability formulas.md ..
@@ 1,21 1,31 @@
# Reference — Readability formulas, and what they cannot see
-
**REF112 · r1 · 2026-09-07 · Reference Researcher · Reference and measurement. Proposes no writing change.**
-
First revision. Written because [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) records that **the owner rejected the
-
latest pitch as "barely understandable"**, that PM's current priority is *"establish an understandable
-
creative direction"*, and because [Clarity Q52](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) has measured
-
opaque-token density across ten pages and found a range of **0.9 to 4.2 per hundred words**.
-
Standard published readability formulas exist, someone will reach for one, and **they cannot see the
-
problem this project has.** This page supplies the instruments, computes them on this wiki's own text, and
> **Do not rank the first two against each other.** They differ by 1.8 Reading Ease points against a
+
> syllable heuristic worth roughly ±2. **That difference is noise.** The only separation here large enough
+
> to survive the method is the third row's distance from the other two, and even that is a single
+
> measurement of one arbitrary span.
-
*Method: Markdown stripped of tables, code blocks and link targets; link text retained; standard vowel-group
-
syllable heuristic. Syllable counting is approximate, so treat these as ±2 points, not exact. Script and
-
spans are in §5.*
+
The one figure that is robust and worth keeping is the plainest: **the Campaign owner section averages
+
24.1 words per sentence against the Design Document opening's 18.2.** Sentence length is exactly what these
+
formulas measure well.
-
## 3. The finding: the formula rates the rejected pitch as *easier*
+
## 3. What the formulas cannot see — from the definition, not from the table
-
**The text the owner called barely understandable scores 59.2. The other owner-facing text scores 57.4 —
-
lower, i.e. formally harder.** The two sit within two points of each other, both in the "fairly difficult"
-
band, and the ranking between them is the *opposite* of the one that matters: one of these was rejected and
-
the other is the artifact the project spent a day making readable.
+
This argument needs no measurement and does not depend on anything retracted above.
-
Meanwhile the reader's own metric separates the same body of pages by a factor of **4.7×** (0.9 to 4.2
-
opaque tokens per hundred words) and puts them in the right order.
+
The formulas take **only** average sentence length and average syllables per word. So consider a token like
+
`EQP101`: to Flesch it is a **short, one-syllable word**, in the same class as *the* or *and*. A passage
+
carrying nine undefined codes in three sentences scores as **easier** than the same passage with the codes
+
expanded into ordinary words, because ordinary words are longer.
-
**So the standard instrument is not merely imprecise here — on the comparison that counts, it points the
-
wrong way.**
+
**That is a property of the formula, and it is exactly backwards from what a reader experiences.** Whether
+
a term has been defined — the thing [Q52](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) measures — is invisible
+
to these instruments by construction.
-
**Why, mechanically.** The formulas can only see length. Consider the opening Q52 quotes:
-
*"EQP102 r1 / Equipment r4 … EQP101 remains In review."* To Flesch, **`EQP101` is a short, one-syllable
-
word** — the same class of token as *the* or *and*. Nine undefined codes in three sentences make a passage
-
*easier* by these formulas, because codes are short. The single feature that makes this project's pages
-
hard to read is the feature the formulas score as good writing.
+
## 4. What the literature says, attributed
-
## 4. What the literature already says about this
+
Reported as source claims, not as findings about this project:
- Wikipedia's own summary: readability formulas *"demonstrate weaknesses compared to directly testing
usability with typical readers. They neglect between-reader differences and effects of content, layout
and retrieval aids."*
-
- Bailin & Grafstein's critique argues the criteria underlying readability formulas **do not constitute a
-
satisfactory basis for assessing reading difficulty**, because style, vocabulary, background knowledge,
-
grammar and textual coherence interact in ways two length averages cannot capture
-
([*The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique*, **Language & Communication**, 2001](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0271530901000052);
-
[ERIC record](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ629584)).
-
- The same literature records a specific hazard: **"writing to the formulas"** — optimising the score
-
rather than the reader — is held to do more harm than good.
-
-
That last point is the practical one. A formula that rewards short words would reward *more* codes.
-
-
## 5. Bearing (inference, for the reader, the editor and PM)
+
- Bailin & Grafstein argue the criteria underlying readability formulas **do not constitute a satisfactory
+
basis for assessing reading difficulty**, because style, vocabulary, background knowledge, grammar and
+
coherence interact in ways two length averages cannot capture
+
([*The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique*, Language & Communication, 2001](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0271530901000052);
W = words, S = sentences of ≥3 words, Y = syllables (vowel-group heuristic)
-
Spans: Campaign and Design Document — from "## Read this first" to the next "## " heading.
-
Equipment — first 6,000 characters of the page source.
-
Markdown tables, code fences and link targets removed; link text kept.
-
```
+
PMR008 also records where the useful evidence actually lies, and it is not here: *"the useful acceptance
+
evidence is the reader explaining the actual proposed vision in ordinary language."*
---
## What this page does not claim
-
No verdict on anyone's writing, and no instruction to change any page — the reader owns readability
-
findings and the editor owns structure. No claim that the Flesch formulas are worthless: they measure
-
sentence and word length accurately, which is all they claim to measure. No claim that a particular score
-
is a target. The syllable heuristic is approximate and the scores are ±2, so **no ranking in §2 should be
-
read as significant below a few points** — which is precisely why §3 rests on the *direction* of the
-
comparison and on the mechanism, not on the decimals.
+
**No comprehension verdict on any page of this project**, and no claim about what the owner did or did not
+
find understandable — r1's attempt at that is retracted above. No verdict on anyone's writing; the
+
[reader](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) owns readability findings and the editor owns structure.
+
No claim that the Flesch formulas are worthless: they measure sentence and word length, which is what they
+
claim to measure. No target score. The §2 table is three single measurements of selected spans, is not a
+
survey, and its first two rows should not be ranked against each other.
## Sources
-
- [Wikipedia: Flesch–Kincaid readability tests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readability_tests) — both formulas, the interpretation bands, and the stated weaknesses
-
- [Bailin, A. & Grafstein, A. (2001), *The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique*, Language & Communication 21(3)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0271530901000052) · [ERIC EJ629584](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ629584)
-
- [Clarity Questions Q52](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) — the opaque-token density measurements this page compares against
-
- [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) — the owner's "barely understandable" verdict and PM's current priority
