B4 · Coding: adjudication and freeze

Resolve placements by returning to evidence

B4 turns the independent readings into a reasoned set of placements. For each disputed theme, it asks what the source material supports under the existing scheme.

Where this stage starts

B3 has returned two readings for each second-order theme. B4 compares them with each other and with the author's earlier grouping. It also has the scheme, the first-order codes and the reasons readers gave. Two readers can agree with each other and still differ from the author's first interpretation.

What the aggregator does

The aggregator first separates failed deliveries from real differences in interpretation. It then examines each disputed placement on its evidence, whichever reader made it. It asks whether the problem lies in an ambiguous category rule, a theme that bundles several acts, a reader's error, the author's error, or material that belongs in more than one category.

An adjudication is a written decision with a reason. It can keep a reader's answer, choose a category neither reader picked, keep several justified placements, or leave the uncertainty explicit. The original answers stay in the record. Where two community coders disagree about a case, both readings and the affected claims are named.

The aggregator leaves the frozen scheme unchanged here. This separates two questions: where an item belongs under the present rules, and whether the rules need changing. C1 takes the second question, with the whole pattern of problems in view.

Finally, fresh readers check samples of the settled placements: a random sample and a sample of adjudicated items. Their results are reported separately from the original agreement rate between independent readers.

What the next stage receives

C1 receives a complete placement record, the reasons behind disputed decisions, and evidence on which category boundaries failed. It can revise the scheme with a stated reason for each change.