# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-13T20:16:27
**Reference**: data/refine_examples/coset_codes/reference_review.md
**Model**: gemini/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
**Mode**: single

## Overall Score: 5.12/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 5.0/6 | Review B identifies several major issues with the paper, including the inconsistent application of the effective coding gain metric, unproved structural claims deferred to Part II, and the lack of proof that the eight classes are exhaustive. It also catches numerous specific errors in the text (e.g., incorrect exponents in Table I, incorrect matrix squaring claim) that Review A missed. |
| specificity | 5.0/6 | Review B is exceptionally specific, providing precise quotes, detailed re-derivations (e.g., matrix multiplication for R^2, exponent checking for H_32 and \Lambda_32), and concrete, actionable suggestions for fixing the text. It consistently grounds its critiques in exact mathematical verification. |
| depth | 5.5/6 | The depth of technical engagement in Review B is outstanding. It independently verifies lattice parameters, checks the consistency of formulas against table entries, and identifies subtle mathematical errors (e.g., the order formula m^N for negative m, the incorrect intermediate lattice in the partition chain example, the missing factor of 2 in the complex distance formula). This goes significantly deeper than Review A. |
| format | 5.0/6 | Review B perfectly follows the requested format, including the header block, Overall Feedback with titled issues, and Detailed Comments with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback sections. |

## Strengths

- Exceptional technical rigor, independently verifying complex lattice formulas and table entries.
- Identifies several genuine mathematical and typographical errors in the original manuscript that the reference review missed.
- Provides highly specific and actionable corrections for every issue raised.

## Weaknesses

- The sheer volume of detailed comments (24) might be overwhelming for the author to process all at once.
- Some of the 'Overall Feedback' points are quite long and dense, reading more like detailed comments than high-level summaries.
