# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-13T18:53:45
**Reference**: data/refine_examples/coset_codes/reference_review.md
**Model**: gemini/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
**Mode**: single

## Overall Score: 3.75/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 3.5/6 | Review B identifies a few valid typographical and mathematical issues (e.g., the $D_k$ typo, the $m^N$ index formula, and the coset representative cardinality mismatch also found by Review A). However, it misses many of the paper's deeper structural issues and pads its coverage with hallucinated problems. |
| specificity | 3.0/6 | Review B fabricates multiple quotes to create fake issues. For example, in Comment 4 it changes $\phi^2 G$ to $\phi^3 G$, in Comment 12 it inserts an $N'$ that does not exist in the text, and in Comment 15 it changes $2^e$ to $2^k$. |
| depth | 3.5/6 | The technical analysis is frequently flawed. Review B misunderstands the isomorphism notation $\simeq$ in Comment 9, incorrectly disputes the valid distance progression $1/2/\dots/2^n$ in Comment 8, and bases several critiques on its own fabricated text. |
| format | 5.0/6 | Review B adheres well to the requested format, including the header block, Overall Feedback with titled issues, and Detailed Comments with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback sections. |

## Strengths

- Successfully identifies a few genuine typographical errors in the paper's mathematical notation (e.g., $D_k$ instead of $D_4$, and the $m^N$ index formula).
- Follows the required structural format perfectly.

## Weaknesses

- Fabricates multiple quotes from the paper to manufacture artificial errors.
- Demonstrates a poor understanding of the paper's mathematical notation, leading to incorrect technical critiques (e.g., misunderstanding the distance progression and the isomorphism symbol).
- Fails to engage deeply with the paper's core methodology, relying instead on surface-level or hallucinated nitpicks.
