The recommended detection profile showed operators precision 0.614, recall
0.606 and F1 0.607. Those three numbers appear nowhere in this repository
except the file that publishes them and a test that pinned them as literal
strings. The only recorded evaluation of that model at that operating point —
tile 512, overlap 64, threshold 0.15, the exact key its promotion report
recommended — reported 0.590, 0.577 and 0.582. The published figures were about
two and a half points more flattering than anything that was measured, on the
profile labelled "aanbevolen", and the test made sure nobody would correct
them. They now carry the measured values.
Worse in kind: the conservative profile reported "gemeten achtergrondfouten 0".
Its nine-sample hard-negative matrix at threshold 0.35 recorded 198 background
detections with 55 in the worst sample. The one number that tells an operator
whether a high-precision model invents buildings on empty terrain said zero
where the evidence said 55.
Those zeros are not simply wrong everywhere, which is why the fix is not just a
number. The other two profiles genuinely produced zero — against a strict
pure-empty gate of three samples, a different and much weaker test than the
nine-sample hard-negative matrix. Printing 0, 0 and 55 side by side invites a
comparison the evidence does not support, so each profile now states its gate,
its background sample count and the evaluation behind its figures, and the
panel shows them.
A test refuses any published figure that does not appear in the evidence
record, with a negative control so it cannot pass by matching nothing. Pinning
the numbers as literal strings is what let an unsourced precision survive; that
assertion is gone.
Also ignoring .codex-artifacts/ — ~300 MB of the rejected SAM2 and
edge-alignment trials plus a deploy bundle. Kept on disk, out of the repository.
No credentials in it; the two token scripts generate from settings.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
