Prominent data-quality caveat: independent review found missing meetings and inconsistencies; coverage claims in these docs are UNVERIFIED — audit before use

DATA-QUALITY-WARNING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# ⚠️ DATA-QUALITY WARNING — READ BEFORE TRUSTING ANY COVERAGE CLAIM IN THESE DOCS
+
+An independent review of this archive (2026-10-03) identified **missing meetings
+and inconsistencies**. The reviewer's findings were not shared in detail, so the
+specifics are unrecorded here — but the general failure modes below are real and
+were either under-weighted or not independently verified in the phase write-ups:
+
+1. **Catalog enumeration was keyword-pattern-based.** The Tucson catalog (75
+   meetings) was selected from 1,561 archive.org items by title regex — variant
+   titles may have been missed. No independent second-pass enumeration was done.
+2. **Suspiciously small transcripts exist** in the boards corpus (e.g.
+   `tucson-boards-49-2026-08-07.jsonl` at 2.4 KB) — possibly dropped audio
+   parts or mis-grouped meetings, never investigated.
+3. **The Pima corpus starts Dec 2025.** Older Pima Board meetings exist
+   somewhere (OnBase / county site); this archive does not have them.
+4. **Speaker naming is heuristic** (roll-call/hand-off voting, ~68–82%);
+   `speaker_name` fields are not authoritative.
+5. **Tucson vote records are absent** (OnBase meeting-level docs are agendas;
+   item-level attachments never exercised). Pima votes were pulled but not
+   reconciled against minutes.
+6. **No transcript was validated against source audio/video** — WER is
+   unmeasured everywhere; the "quality gate" only checks punctuation
+   heuristics.
+
+**Treat the coverage numbers in the READMEs and runbook (75/75, 53/53, 621/624)
+as pipeline-output counts, not verified completeness.**
+
+The pipeline itself is idempotent and its scripts + provenance are on the Hub
+(see `pima-tucson-pipeline-runbook.md` and `RESUME.md` in
+`tucson-boards-commissions`), so a proper audit-and-patch pass is incremental,
+not a rebuild. But that audit has not happened.