History
| Date | Author | Commit Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
2026-09-07 16:51:36 ebb03d | Anonymous | Restart cleanup: retain owner requirements and reusable guidance; remove obsolete commentary |
|
|
|
2026-09-07 13:07:43 ad953c | 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. |
|
|
|
2026-09-07 11:08:12 ca6543 | Anonymous | REF112 r1: new reference page on readability formulas and what they cannot see, prompted by the owner rejecting the pitch as barely understandable and PM making an understandable creative direction the priority. Supplies the exact Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid formulas and bands, then runs them on this wiki's own owner-facing text - and the result is the finding: the rejected Campaign pitch scores 59.2, EASIER than the Design Document's owner opening at 57.4, so on the comparison that matters the standard instrument points the wrong way, while the reader's own opaque-token metric separates the same pages by 4.7x and orders them correctly. The mechanism is exact: the formulas see only sentence length and syllables, so an undefined code like EQP101 counts as a short one-syllable word - nine of them in three sentences makes a passage score EASIER. Cites Bailin and Grafstein's critique to its journal record and the documented hazard of writing to the formulas. Explicitly not a readability audit or a verdict on anyone's writing - the reader owns that; this only tests whether the standard instrument is fit for the job and concludes it is not. Method, spans and heuristic limits stated so the numbers can be reproduced or refuted. |