Verbatim scan: content/drafts/dt-overview/trust-chapter.tex

Review aid, not a gate. This report is evidence for a human judgement, never a verdict. A driver may read it back; no draft is blocked by what it says. See SOUL.md, and docs/ARCHITECTURE.md's "Layer 4: the review layer".

• Draft: content/drafts/dt-overview/trust-chapter.tex
• Command: python -m chitragupta.review verbatim scan content/drafts/dt-overview/trust-chapter.tex --min-run 8 --gap 1 --write
• chitragupta 6.61.7
• Allowlist: none configured (content/verbatim_allowlist.toml not found)

How to read this

Every run of at least --min-run words this draft shares with any parsed source in the corpus, cited or not. Sharing wording is not by itself misconduct -- a defined term, a standard's name and a correctly quoted sentence all show up here -- so each finding is a place to look, not a charge.

Two flags narrow the reading:

• UNCITED SOURCE -- the paragraph the run sits in does not cite the source it matched. That is the finding overlap structurally cannot make, and the one most worth reading first.
• quoted -- the run touches quote delimiters, so it is most likely a deliberate quotation. A run is usually wider than the quotation inside it -- it can open in the draft's own framing prose -- so this reads as overlap, not containment.

Each finding names its tier: exact is a verbatim run; skip-gram is a tolerant stemmed-subsequence match that also catches a passage with a handful of words substituted. A skip-gram finding's word count is matched words / span: how many words the tier actually matched, out of the raw width of text those matches span -- the two can differ a lot, since a skip-gram window can stretch across stopwords and opposite-family words that were not themselves matched.

embedding is the third tier: a sentence-level alignment between a section of this draft and the sources its dossier records that section as written from. It matches meaning rather than wording, so it is the only tier that can see a genuine restatement -- and the only one whose findings are not reproducible from the draft and the corpus alone, since the vectors change with [enrich].embedding_model. Its score is that alignment's strength, not a probability and not comparable to anything the other two report; a passage a deterministic tier already flagged is left to that tier rather than reported twice.

Findings below are grouped most-damning-first: long runs, then short ones, then quoted runs -- but a quoted run only drops into the last group when it also cites the source it matched. A quoted run from an uncited source is still grouped by length (on matched words, not raw span), not buried under quoted.

The allowlist bullet above names a per-host, gitignored file (content/verbatim_allowlist.toml, see docs/PLAGIARISM.md) of boilerplate this host's owner has decided never to flag -- a run is only dropped when what's left after discounting the allowlisted text would no longer clear --min-run on its own, so a real lift that merely contains a defined term still shows up below.

A clean run is not a clean bill of health. This draft has been checked against all three tiers, but they do not cover the same ground: the two deterministic ones see wording, and the embedding tier sees meaning only within each section's own recorded sources. Reuse from a source a section's dossier does not record is outside what any of the three can find by restatement alone. See docs/PLAGIARISM.md.

Findings

No verbatim run of 8 words or more was found anywhere in the draft.