proofread

name: proofread description: | JSONL-driven 6-layer proofread workflow for math manuscript. Each prop in main.jsonl becomes a [ ] checklist item in manuscript/.proofread/.md; walk through L1-L5 + location-drift per prop; mark [x] (CLEAN) / [~] (finding) / [-] (out of scope).

L1 = text-claim match (asserts truly atomic + faithful paraphrase) L2 = claim_type fit (axiom non-derivable / definition has equality / commentary not derived / etc.) L3 = cite completeness (all external refs declared) L4 = cite validity (each cited prop logically implies this prop's asserts) L5 = evidence_class fit (derived needs cites / axiomatic truly axiom / etc.) +location drift (claimed line range matches main.tex actual)

Use when: pre-submission final polish, post large rewrite, Hsu-approval-pending area, validating prop-extraction quality. NOT for daily micro-edit (use sync rule + validator).

v0.1.0 SCAFFOLDING — execution body TODO. Methodology frozen in PsychQuantHsu/psychophysical_representations/manuscript/.proofread/main_jsonl_l4_walk.md. allowed-tools: - Read - Write - Edit - Grep - Glob - Bash - AskUserQuestion

Proofread — 6-Layer Walk

Status (v0.1.0)

Scaffolding only. Methodology demonstrated + frozen at:

PsychQuantHsu/psychophysical_representations/manuscript/.proofread/main_jsonl.md (637-line checklist source)
manuscript/.proofread/main_jsonl_l4_walk.md (Pilot 3 full L4 walk ledger, 286-prop coverage)

3 pilots completed (#107):

Pilot	Scope	Findings	Status
1	`_stage2/theorem1.jsonl` (23 props)	13 location-drift	escalated → #106 closed
2	`main.jsonl` thm:eta-s (46 props)	2 L3 + 2 COMPRESS + 1 mild L3	all fixed in commit 9e85198
3	Full `main.jsonl` (286 props, hybrid 115 deep + 20 sample + 151 heuristic)	0 additional	ledger frozen

The 6 Layers

Layer	Check	Detection difficulty
L1	prop.text真的 claim 出 asserts 列項? (atomic + faithful paraphrase)	Mostly mechanical via R1 substring match
L2	claim_type matches text semantic? (axiom non-derivable / definition has equality / commentary not derived / restatement truly re-states / case_split truly partitions)	Semi-mechanical — heuristic on bullet pattern
L3	All external refs in prop.text declared in cites field?	LLM-required — load-bearing reference detection is semantic
L4	Does each cited prop logically imply this prop's asserts? (mathematical correctness given cites)	LLM-required — derivation chain verification
L5	evidence_class consistent with claim_type? (derived needs cites; axiomatic truly axiom; verified has external proof)	Schema-aware heuristic + LLM judgment
location	location.line range matches actual main.tex line range	Mechanical via `scripts/refresh-prop-locations.py`

ROI Cliff (from Pilot 3 data)

Proof body / derivation chain: ~2.6% finding rate (3/115 deep walk)
Theorems 2-4 + Synthesis: 0% (0/20 sampled)
Commentary / Discussion: 0% mechanical anomalies (0/151 heuristic)

→ Hybrid coverage strategy: deep walk proof body + sample mid-density sections + heuristic scan commentary.

Execution Steps (v0.2.0 target — TODO)

Step 0: Bootstrap Stage Task List

TaskCreate generate_checklist_md / decide_coverage_strategy /
            per_prop_walk (L1-L5+location) / classify_finding /
            update_ledger / decide_escalation (audit-finding issue / inline note / camera-ready candidate) /
            commit_with_jsonl_sync

Step 1: Generate `.proofread/<file>.md` checklist from JSONL

For each prop, emit:

- [ ] **P{seq}** `{uuid_short}` [{claim_type}] @L{start}-L{end} — "{first 80 chars of text}..." (asserts: {N}, cites: {N})

Group by containing_block field. Add hyperlink to git blame for audit trail.

Step 2: Coverage decision (AskUserQuestion 4-option)

Strategy	Use case	Time
By section (e.g. Theorem 1 ~40 props)	Section-cohesive review	20-30 min
By claim_type	Foundational props first	variable
By priority area (recent-change cluster)	Post-PR follow-up	25-40 min
Full manuscript (~2-3h)	Pre-submission gate	2-3h

Step 3: Per-prop L4 walk

For each prop, present:

prop.text (raw)
prop.asserts (atomic list)
prop.cites (UUID list — resolve each via main.jsonl lookup)
prop.claim_type / evidence_class

Ask coordinator to verify:

L1: do asserts faithfully decompose text?
L2: does claim_type fit?
L3: is anything cited in text but not in cites field?
L4: does each cited prop's asserts logically imply this prop's asserts?
L5: is evidence_class consistent?
location: spot-check main.tex line N — does prop.text start there?

Mark [x] (CLEAN all 6), [~] (finding noted, detail in § Findings), [-] (out of scope).

Step 4: Findings ledger

Hybrid mode: inline § Findings table in .proofread/*.md for severity < L3-blocking; escalate severity ≥ L3 cite-completeness OR ≥ 10 props affected to separate audit-finding GitHub issue (per code-and-manuscript-sync.md cluster discipline).

Step 5: Fix-shipping (if findings)

Per manuscript-jsonl-sync.md scenario routing:

L1/L3 cite-completeness → scenario 6 (jsonl-only edit, add UUID)
L2 misclassification → fix prop.claim_type + re-validate R6
L4 COMPRESS (camera-ready candidate) → scenario 1 (wording expand in main.tex) + scenario 2 (prop.text sync)
L5 mismatch → fix evidence_class + verify schema

Coordinator commits with cross-link to .proofread ledger entry.

When NOT to Use

Daily micro-edit → use R1-R8 validator + sync rule (cheaper)
Pre-extraction phase (jsonl doesn't exist yet) → run propositions skill first
Commentary-only sections → heuristic scan is enough; deep walk ROI low

Cross-link

Source dogfood: PsychQuantHsu/psychophysical_representations #107 (3 pilots done)
Rule: ../../rules/manuscript-jsonl-sync.md — sync discipline after L3/L4 fix
Sister skill: /math-tools:propositions for mechanical R1-R8 gate
Sister skill: /math-tools:manuscript-audit for cross-doc R1-R4 drift