This example shows the editorial synthesizer's Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 5 flow on a compound weakness — the case the §F.3.2 partial-evidence trap exists to catch — and contrasts the old bundle-level aggregation (which buries a minority sub-claim) with the sub-claim decomposition introduced for #214.
It is a focused illustration of one weakness bundle, not a full Phase 0–2 walkthrough (see hei_paper_review_example.md for that).
The paper reports a multi-site mixed-effects analysis. Three reviewers raised concerns that look like "one statistics weakness" but are actually two distinct claims:
The Step 1 inventory collapses this into a single Key Weaknesses cell ("statistics problems"), and Step 2 reaches one consensus verdict on the bundle:
[CONSENSUS-3] Statistics problems — R1, R2, R3 agree; EIC silent. Author must fix.
What went wrong: the bundle holds two sub-claims with different support levels, and the verdict averages them into one. "Random-effects grouping unspecified" was raised by R1 and corroborated by R2 — a genuine 2-reviewer consensus. "Inconsistent reporting units" was raised by R1 and R3 but is a different defect. Folding both into one "[CONSENSUS-3]" item produces a single roadmap line that lets the author treat the whole thing as one fix, and the precise grouping-factor defect can be lost inside a vague "clean up the statistics" instruction. Partial support read as full resolution.
| sub_claim_id | parent_weakness | reviewer_id | position | evidence_pointer | confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC-1 | Statistics | R1 | raised | "random-effects grouping never specified" | 5 |
| SC-1 | Statistics | R2 | corroborated | "random-effects structure is unclear" | 4 |
| SC-1 | Statistics | R3 | not-mentioned | — | — |
| SC-1 | Statistics | EIC | not-mentioned | — | — |
| SC-2 | Statistics | R1 | raised | "Table 3 betas vs Table 4 raw coeffs, no key" | 5 |
| SC-2 | Statistics | R3 | corroborated | "units shift between tables" | 3 |
| SC-2 | Statistics | R2 | not-mentioned | — | — |
| SC-2 | Statistics | EIC | not-mentioned | — | — |
Two atomic sub-claims fall out of the one "statistics" bundle. not-mentioned is recorded as silence, not opposition.
agree = 2 (R1 raised, R2 corroborated), conflict = 0, silent = 2 (R3, EIC). Two agree, none conflict → a corroborated finding (below the CONSENSUS-3 bar of 3/4), action-bearing and prioritized by R1's Confidence-5 weight. Not a CONSENSUS-3/4 label; not a SPLIT.agree = 2 (R1 raised, R3 corroborated), conflict = 0, silent = 2 (R2, EIC) → a corroborated finding, R1 Confidence-5. Not a SPLIT.Note the threshold discipline: even though every reviewer who spoke agreed, neither sub-claim is promoted to CONSENSUS-4 — the denominator is the full panel of 4, not the 2 who spoke, so 2/4 is a corroborated finding, not unanimity. This is exactly the mislabel the absolute-count rule prevents.
Neither sub-claim triggers EIC arbitration — there is no disputed position anywhere, so finer granularity did not manufacture arbitration load. (Had R2 instead written "the grouping is clearly by site, this is a non-issue," SC-1 would carry a disputed position against R1's raised, and then it would be a genuine SPLIT requiring EIC arbitration.)
Instead of one blurred "fix the statistics" line, two separately-prioritized, traceable items:
Priority 1 — Structural (Must Fix) - [SC-1] Specify the mixed-model random-effects grouping factor (sites vs participants) and re-state the model. Raised R1 (conf 5), corroborated R2 (conf 4).
Priority 2 — Content Supplementation (Should Fix) - [SC-2] Standardize coefficient reporting across Tables 3–4 (one convention + a key). Raised R1 (conf 5), corroborated R3 (conf 3).
Each item carries its sub_claim_id, traces back to the Step 1b inventory, and flows forward into academic-paper revision mode unchanged in format. The minority-risk sub-claim (the grouping factor) is now its own Priority-1 item rather than buried in a bundle.
sub_claim as the primary key, alongside the retained Step 1a summary matrix.not-mentioned correctly excluded from both consensus and SPLIT counting.