Net score
+7
Sum of -3..+3 criteria.
At a glance
Strongest control
[C2] Matched reusable-template control
Realistic workflow/product application
Treatment
[T] WeaveMark treatment
Headline structural-mingling evidence.
Semantic trace
release material -> readiness claim -> gate/evidence -> validation/failure -> action/waiver/decision -> launch/audit
Propagation path inspected.
Variant metrics
Columns are grouped into authoring size, final output size, and semantic-information proxies.
| Variant | Role | Source | Variables | Output | Leverage | Fact units | Density | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [C1] Manual brief [C1] Manual brief | Compact hand-written release-workbench request. | 55 | 0 | 55 | 1x | 5 | 90.9 | 90.9 |
| [C2] Matched reusable-template control [C2] Matched reusable-template control | Template shell with study-local release, storage, workspace, and validation partials. | 68 | 84 | 1,069 | 15.72x | 97.75 | 91.4 | 1,437.5 |
| [T] WeaveMark treatment [T] WeaveMark treatment | Refines release, evidence, validation, decision, dashboard, notification, and programming layers. | 248 | 55 | 4,762 | 19.2x | 322 | 67.6 | 1,298.4 |
Metric definitions and scoring legendOpen for exact meanings.
Source words
Words in the local study source for a variant; this is the local authoring burden.
Variable words
Words in a variant's explicit input payload, when a template or refinement uses one.
Output words
Words in the saved compiled final artifact.
Leverage
Output words divided by local source words; larger means more final artifact per local word, not quality by itself.
Fact units
Novelty-weighted semantic fact units extracted from the output by deterministic rules.
Density
Discounted fact units per 1,000 output words; higher means a more information-dense output.
Yield
Discounted fact units per 1,000 local source words; higher means more semantic material per local authoring word.
Treatment-control comparison
| Metric | [C2] Matched reusable-template control | [T] WeaveMark treatment | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source-only leverage | 15.72 | 19.2 | win |
| Discounted fact units | 97.75 | 322 | win |
| Information density | 91.4 | 67.6 | loss |
| Information yield | 1,437.5 | 1,298.4 | loss |
Contrastive gain/loss scores
Scores compare [T] WeaveMark treatment against [C2] Matched reusable-template control on the -3..+3 scale.
Primary scores are blind* using hybrid-derived-metrics-and-masked-review: anonymous absolute 1..7 scores were frozen before reveal, then converted to the -3..+3 treatment-control scale. Hybrid blind* scoring uses derived metrics for mechanical criteria and masked source/output review for criteria that require actual reading. The masked review is less blind because domain content, source syntax, or style can leak, but this is necessary to avoid replacing readability and integration judgments with weak length/density proxies.
| Criterion | Blind* score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Authoring leverage | +2 | derived-evidence method. Blind* absolute scores: 7 for [T] versus 4 for the strongest control. |
| Information yield | -2 | derived-evidence method. Blind* absolute scores: 4 for [T] versus 7 for the strongest control. |
| Grounded expressiveness | +2 | masked-source-output review method. Blind* absolute scores: 7 for [T] versus 4 for the strongest control. |
| Input readability | +1 | masked-source review method. Blind* absolute scores: 5 for [T] versus 4 for the strongest control. |
| Output readability | +1 | masked-output review method. Blind* absolute scores: 6 for [T] versus 5 for the strongest control. |
| Constraint integration | +2 | masked-source-output review method. Blind* absolute scores: 7 for [T] versus 4 for the strongest control. |
| Reusable abstraction quality | +1 | masked-source review method. Blind* absolute scores: 6 for [T] versus 5 for the strongest control. |
| Total | +7 | Net contrastive gain/loss. |
Metric definitions and scoring legendOpen for exact meanings.
Contrastive score
A -3..+3 judgment comparing [T] against the strongest listed control for each criterion.
Total score
The sum of the seven contrastive criterion scores for one study.
Score color
Green means [T] is better, red means worse, amber means similar; intensity follows magnitude.
Gains and failures
Gains
- [T] WeaveMark treatment wins source-only leverage: 19.2 versus 15.72 for [C2] Matched reusable-template control.
- [T] WeaveMark treatment wins discounted fact units: 322 versus 97.75 for [C2] Matched reusable-template control.
- Release gates, evidence quality, validation matrices, risks, waivers, actions, dashboards, and browser validation all shape one workflow.
- The treatment has higher source-only leverage than the matched reusable-template control.
- The final specification adds substantially more actionable release facts than the control.
Failures and caveats
- [T] WeaveMark treatment loses information density: 67.6 versus 91.4 for [C2] Matched reusable-template control.
- [T] WeaveMark treatment loses information yield: 1,298.4 versus 1,437.5 for [C2] Matched reusable-template control.
- [T] WeaveMark treatment is much longer: 4,762 words versus 1,069 for [C2] Matched reusable-template control.
- The matched template is already strong and keeps higher information density.
- The treatment loses information yield versus the template because the WeaveMark source is longer while the template shell stays very compact.
- No downstream release-workbench implementation outcome has been measured.
Conclusion
A strong headline study, with the honest caveat that the template remains denser and more source-efficient on the yield proxy.