| # Phase 5, Step 5.4 — Final Quality Spot-Check |
|
|
| Samples drawn from the ASSEMBLED FINAL corpora (`data/final/{category}/final.jsonl`), |
| seed=42, via `scripts/assemble/sample_final_audit.py` — distinct from Step 4.4's |
| audit, which sampled from the pre-assembly `filtered.jsonl` files. This is the |
| last line of defense before delivery. |
|
|
| ## Math (200-record sample, seed=42, from `data/final/math/final.jsonl`) |
|
|
| Read 40 of 200 sampled records in full detail. |
|
|
| ### Ratings |
| - ✅ Good: 29/40 (72.5%) — genuine, on-target K-12 through advanced math and |
| applied-STEM content: worked physics/EE/thermodynamics problems, forum |
| Q&A (PhysicsForums, MathHelpForum, MathOverflow, StackExchange), exam |
| content (CBSE, board exams, GMAT/GRE quant), logic puzzles, real analysis |
| and number theory, MATLAB/R applied-math code, K-12 arithmetic word |
| problems. Several records use a listicle/FAQ blog format but contain |
| factually correct, pedagogically useful content (e.g. "What is the |
| difference between real numbers and integers?", "How to calculate 2/3 of a |
| number") — style alone was not treated as disqualifying. |
| - ⚠️ Borderline: 5/40 (12.5%) — legitimate but low-value: a bare index page |
| of NRICH problem titles/links with no actual problem content, a |
| commercial worksheet product page with a genuine explanatory tail, a |
| CourseHero paywall preview truncated mid-content, a WikiAnswers page with |
| messy comment-thread residue attached to an otherwise-fine answer. |
| - ❌ Bad: 6/40 (15%) — **above pipeline.md's <10% threshold.** Specific |
| findings, each a distinct pattern: |
| 1. **AI-generated clickbait filler** (2 instances, e.g. "Mind-Blowing |
| Result: You Won't Believe What Happens When You Divide 70 By 5!") — |
| sensationalized SEO content with no real mathematical depth. Already |
| documented as a known residual limitation in `quality_audit.md` (Step |
| 4.4 found the same pattern, sample #25). |
| 2. **Off-topic forum comment-thread dump** — a robot-automation/UBI/ |
| politics discussion thread (source: i-am-bored.com) containing a couple |
| of incidental dollar-figure calculations, which was enough to pass |
| finemath4plus's classifier-trust shortcut (density/language checks are |
| skipped for this source per the Step 4.1 AMC-8 fix) despite having |
| almost no real educational math content. A new pattern — similar in |
| spirit to the Reddit-dump issue already fixed, but from a different |
| domain/format with no shared detectable signature. |
| 3. **Content-aggregator dump** — a Q&A-farm page splicing together several |
| unrelated questions under an irrelevant title, including one entirely |
| off-topic, non-English question (Tagalog, about a typhoon's landfall). |
| 4. **Thin SEO template page** — a "NCERT Solutions for Class X Maths" |
| listing that only describes chapter topics in generic boilerplate, |
| repeated near-verbatim across chapter headers, with no actual worked |
| content. |
| 5. **Scraping artifact** — a factoring-trinomials page with unrelated |
| sidebar/related-links text (from completely different topics — pop |
| culture quotes, gaming guides, unrelated products) spliced into the |
| main text field, a scraper capturing page chrome alongside content. |
| 6. **Essay-mill / homework-cheating-service advertisement** — a legitimate |
| econometrics/regression homework problem wrapped in explicit marketing |
| copy for a paid paper-writing service ("Zero-plagiarism guarantee", |
| "Money-back guarantee", "Free-revision policy"). The most concerning |
| individual finding: this doesn't just lower quality, it embeds |
| promotional content for an academic-dishonesty service inside an |
| educational corpus. |
| |
| ### Conclusion and decision |
| This sample's bad rate (15%, n=40) exceeds pipeline.md's 10% threshold and is |
| higher than the earlier Step 4.4 pre-assembly audit (7.5%, n=40) — a real |
| signal, not just sampling noise, though also not enormous in absolute terms. |
| All six bad findings are DIFFERENT patterns from each other and from the |
| already-fixed Reddit-dump issue; none has a cheap, low-false-positive |
| detection signature the way the Reddit vote-marker did. Flagged to the user |
| with the tradeoff (accept as a documented limitation vs. build one more |
| targeted fix vs. broadly re-tighten finemath4plus's skipped density/language |
| checks, at the cost of reintroducing the AMC-8 false-positive problem that |
| motivated skipping them in the first place). **User decision: accept and |
| proceed to delivery** — the corpus is still ~85% good+borderline (72.5% |
| cleanly good), token targets are comfortably met (1.005B, 0.5% over target), |
| and further tightening risks re-losing the legitimate terse/notation-heavy |
| content the AMC-8 fix was specifically designed to recover. Documented here |
| as a known, accepted residual limitation rather than silently ignored. |
|
|
| ## Code (200-record sample, seed=42, from `data/final/code/final.jsonl`) |
|
|
| Read 46 of 200 sampled records in full detail, spanning all 9 sources |
| (githubcode x5 across python/javascript/java/html/css, freecodecamp, |
| exercism, apps, codecontests). |
|
|
| ### Ratings |
| - ✅ Good: 43/46 (93.5%) — real, functional, well-formed code across all |
| languages and sources: production libraries (urllib3, IntelliJ, Quarkus, |
| Apache Aries), application code (Django/Angular/Android), freeCodeCamp |
| lesson content with solutions, Exercism canonical solutions, and |
| competitive-programming problems with correct multi-language solutions |
| (Codeforces via CodeContests). |
| - ⚠️ Borderline: 2/46 (4.3%) — auto-generated artifacts that are real but |
| not educational: a Clover test-coverage-instrumentation JS file, a |
| Doxygen HTML search-index JS data file. Consistent with the same |
| "auto-generated docs slip through" gap already documented in |
| `quality_audit.md`'s code section (there found for Sphinx; here for |
| Clover/Doxygen — same category of gap, different tools). |
| - ❌ Bad: 1/46 (2.2%) — a near-empty JS build-artifact stub containing only |
| `"use strict"` boilerplate and a base64-encoded sourcemap comment, with |
| zero actual logic. A transpiler/bundler output file that neither the |
| `is_minified` nor `is_autogenerated` heuristics were designed to catch |
| (it's not minified — it's just empty — and carries no "auto-generated" |
| marker text). |
|
|
| ### Conclusion |
| Both thresholds (<10% bad, <30% borderline) are comfortably met — consistent |
| with Step 4.4's pre-assembly code audit (~90% good, ~10% borderline, 0% bad). |
| No further action needed for code; the two minor gaps found are the same |
| class of low-frequency, low-severity issue already accepted for the code |
| category. |
|
|
| ## Overall Step 5.4 conclusion |
| Code passes cleanly. Math has a real, above-threshold bad rate (15%) driven |
| by diffuse, low-frequency patterns with no cheap fix — flagged to the user, |
| who chose to accept it as a documented residual limitation given the corpus |
| is still ~85% good+borderline and both categories comfortably exceed their |
| 1B-token targets. Proceeding to Phase 6 (Documentation & Delivery). |
|
|
