asciidoc-pubkit 1.0.2 → 1.0.3

checksums.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 SHA256:
-  metadata.gz: 905d849fe8f73050f29a9a30178a97487220b732b9d4b512e239708cd4141183
-  data.tar.gz: 49fda58238752aa5428f5ae01dcecd2ee064647686f42e98daf36cf47114d67b
+  metadata.gz: 1ca3e56810daf83687c0758172892f89e2acba8bc0d16c909fa0da8183617179
+  data.tar.gz: 69ba46436e3316058ff76f916325db0d3c6e94ce8a2700915cdd25c20d53e99a
 SHA512:
-  metadata.gz: 1f4faad90e82bbfcdff69672807169610db35c9eb36d0863f32e5a3d44af97e2d67ebdcdea6505197a3163cc65c3eed2232dc236f2078415776acfe60358bfcf
-  data.tar.gz: 99c3dc7d0c57ac49d05340e29e4a224eb2676a3a26ba52c6ad2f44691dfa7e8cf3b74b82992bffa7eaa3e714098caf236cf21e7b4f6eab4bd2d56dd369e07330
+  metadata.gz: f2d203eec585c19961aab955cf1d3ddd98712569c14e9d85898f810750d24a5f8a3e8db2752503ec74094e58ffcb4ed6a9eb6932e23512dc5a3d688350a95021
+  data.tar.gz: 301e914f2bc66bdfbc2342c7beacda5d8b47ac6a30c50c51afdf3b1695212d45bc948ae73fdf20ea505431f0664e4ebc42c3511f668f54eb98a7f105a1007aad

data/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,17 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## 1.0.3 — 2026-10-07
+
+- Adapt yomiyasu v1.0.8 guidance to preserve comparison axes, completed/current/
+  planned status, event and observation dates, attribution, and known operations
+  despite unclear state descriptions. Keep actual source uncertainty in the
+  manuscript and reviewer questions in the separate report.
+- Expand the original evaluation corpus from 21 to 26 paragraphs as
+  `technical-prose-v3`, and revision calibration from 31 to 43 pairs. Extend the
+  judge rubric for these distinctions; require fresh AI baselines for the changed
+  corpus, calibration, and rubric. Add paragraph-boundary and soft-line-break
+  repetition regressions without changing detector rules or verification semantics.
+
 ## 1.0.2 — 2026-10-05
 
 - Add contextual prose candidates for 分かる, 置く, 変える, 発火, 短い, and 長い,

data/README.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ and books on health, exercise, and sports science published under
 The experience informs the toolkit's writing criteria, contextual review prompts,
 and checks for preserving manuscript content during revision.
 
-Version 1.0.2 provides document inspection, explicit prose-only mechanical
+Version 1.0.3 provides document inspection, explicit prose-only mechanical
 replacements, and Japanese manuscript review. Inspect a book's outline,
 metadata, and local cross-references; preview and apply your replacement rules;
 then review and verify edits against a saved baseline.
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Japanese manuscript excerpts and rule terms retain their original text.
 
 ## Available features
 
-The following commands are available in version 1.0.2.
+The following commands are available in version 1.0.3.
 
 | Feature | Commands | Behavior |
 | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -49,6 +49,10 @@ with structural comparison before and after revision and preservation of sentenc
 functions and plain or polite style. The [development evaluation](docs/prose-evaluation.md)
 includes new cases for these checks.
 
+Version 1.0.3 additionally preserves comparison axes, temporal roles,
+and known actions in unclear passages, separating source uncertainty from editorial
+questions. The evaluation guide describes the expanded corpus and calibration.
+
 ## Requirements and scope
 
 Ruby 3.2 or later is required; RubyGems installs Asciidoctor and the other Ruby
@@ -81,7 +85,7 @@ asciidoc-pubkit --help
 ```
 
 To update, run `gem update asciidoc-pubkit`. For Bundler, add
-`gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.2'` to your project's `Gemfile` and run commands
+`gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.3'` to your project's `Gemfile` and run commands
 through `bundle exec`. See [source installation and local checkout usage](docs/installation.md).
 
 ## Quick start
@@ -121,7 +125,7 @@ asciidoc-pubkit writing prompt --lang ja --output writing-prompt.md
 
 Existing review sessions require the exact tool version that created them.
 Before upgrading, finish ongoing reviews with that version or preserve their
-baselines and start a new review in a separate directory with v1.0.2. A new
+baselines and start a new review in a separate directory with v1.0.3. A new
 scan cannot verify preservation relative to an earlier baseline.
 
 ## Documentation

data/data/writing/ja/criteria.md

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 - Make relationships explicit
 - Compare structure before and after revision
 - Keep claims within their evidence and purpose
+- Keep source uncertainty separate from editorial questions
 - Remove generated-prose patterns without flattening the meaning
 - Preserve exact technical terminology
 - Revise the complete paragraph
@@ -165,6 +166,13 @@ action, or an evaluation into an implementation goal. Sequence words such as
 behavior. When the function or actor is unresolved, retain the uncertainty and
 record what needs confirmation.
 
+Keep completed changes, current behavior or policy, and future plans distinct.
+`上限を3回へ変更しました` reports a completed change; `最大3回再送します`
+can describe current behavior; `変更する予定です` describes a plan. Do not
+change tense merely to vary endings. Current behavior alone does not establish
+that it was introduced or changed in this revision. Report a change only when
+the source establishes it; do not invent an earlier state or improvement.
+
 Preserve plain or polite style unless the author requests a change or the book's
 explicit style requirements call for one. A technical topic alone does not
 require polite style. Resolve unintended style mixing separately from each
@@ -221,6 +229,13 @@ Use these checks when splitting, joining, or rearranging sentences:
 - Preserve the scope and direction of purpose, reason, contrast, and emphasis.
   A purpose applying to two operations must still apply to both after splitting;
   necessary contrast or priority must not become simple addition or equality.
+- Preserve the comparison axis as well as the alternatives and rank. Calling
+  a problem the most important does not establish that it is the most frequent
+  or easiest to overlook. Keep an unresolved comparison unresolved.
+- Distinguish the time an event occurred from when someone observed, learned,
+  or reported it. `9月2日に、9月1日に障害が発生したと聞きました` must not
+  become `9月2日に障害が発生しました`. Preserve attribution and distinguish
+  reported evidence from direct observation.
 
 Adjust punctuation when it obscures these relationships, not merely to reduce
 comma counts. Keep a colon that maps a label to a value, such as `状態: 正常`,
@@ -242,6 +257,27 @@ affects use, implementation, or verification, state the concrete condition and
 connect it to the relevant action or check. Do not delete a technical boundary
 merely because it uses negative wording.
 
+## Keep source uncertainty separate from editorial questions
+
+Retain an actual undecided or under-investigation state in the reader-facing
+body, including its time and scope. A reviewer not understanding a phrase does
+not establish that the author or implementation is uncertain. Do not add
+`要確認`, questions, or editorial explanations to the manuscript; put reviewer
+questions and proposed alternatives in the separate review report. Report missing
+evidence without weakening an established operation or inventing a new actor.
+
+When a state description is unclear but its associated action is known, preserve
+both the source wording's scope and the known action in the body. For example,
+`破綻したメッセージは隔離します` does not establish a signature failure, nor
+does uncertainty about `破綻` authorize deleting the isolation operation. Retain
+the term when a faithful alternative cannot be established and record the exact
+question separately. Quoting the operation only in a confirmation item does not
+preserve it in the manuscript. Keep source-provided `未定` or `調査中` statements;
+do not turn them into reviewer notes or omit them as editing clutter.
+
+These instructions do not authorize edits to protected content or new manuscript
+annotations. Preserve the selected review scope and keep unreviewed items pending.
+
 ## Remove generated-prose patterns without flattening the meaning
 
 Common patterns that merit paragraph-level review include:

data/docs/document-commands.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Document commands
 
-Version 1.0.2 provides four read-only document commands. They require neither
+Version 1.0.3 provides four read-only document commands. They require neither
 MeCab nor an AI CLI, accept documents in any language, and do not create review
 sessions or change manuscripts.
 

data/docs/installation.md

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Add the gem to your project's `Gemfile` to manage its version with Bundler:
 
 ```ruby
 source 'https://rubygems.org'
-gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.2'
+gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.3'
 ```
 
 Then install dependencies and run the CLI through Bundler:
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ git clone https://github.com/cybergarage/asciidoc-pubkit.git
 cd asciidoc-pubkit
 bundle install
 gem build asciidoc-pubkit.gemspec
-gem install ./asciidoc-pubkit-1.0.2.gem
+gem install ./asciidoc-pubkit-1.0.3.gem
 asciidoc-pubkit --version
 ```
 

data/docs/prose-evaluation.md

@@ -5,8 +5,9 @@ criteria changes against a project-defined baseline. Keep detection performance,
 readability, and meaning preservation separate so that a clearer rewrite cannot
 hide a lost condition or invented fact.
 
-This guide describes version 1.0.2, including the
-`technical-prose-v2` corpus and expanded revision calibration. The evaluation runner is not an
+This guide describes the version 1.0.3 development checkout, including the
+`technical-prose-v3` corpus and expanded revision calibration.
+The evaluation runner is not an
 installed gem command. It does not measure Japanese naturalness or AI authorship
 as a single validated score.
 
@@ -39,10 +40,10 @@ of Japanese writing.
 
 | File | Contents and role |
 | --- | --- |
-| [prose_benchmark.ja.adoc](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.ja.adoc) | 21 paragraphs used as the actual AsciiDoc input |
+| [prose_benchmark.ja.adoc](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.ja.adoc) | 26 paragraphs used as the actual AsciiDoc input |
 | [prose_benchmark.ja.json](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.ja.json) | Matching paragraph IDs and text, 11 annotated detector targets, and preservation checklists |
 | [prose_benchmark.yml](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.yml) | Fixed empty configuration that isolates the benchmark from discovered manuscript settings |
-| [prose_evaluation.ja.json](../test/fixtures/prose_evaluation.ja.json) | Detection examples and 31 manual revision pairs with expected `accept`, `reject`, or `needs-evidence` dispositions |
+| [prose_evaluation.ja.json](../test/fixtures/prose_evaluation.ja.json) | Detection examples and 43 manual revision pairs with expected `accept`, `reject`, or `needs-evidence` dispositions |
 
 The corpus includes framing such as `重要なのは`, metaphorical operations such
 as `地味に効く`, inflected and negative forms, and repeated endings. Controls
@@ -74,8 +75,18 @@ and policy definition confused with enforcement. Controls retain precise plain
 verbs or replace relative wording with supported counts and event operations.
 Unsupported details use `needs-evidence`; contradictions and lost explicit
 conditions use `reject`. These are original editorial fixtures, not manuscript
-excerpts. The 21-paragraph corpus and judge rubric are unchanged, but the changed
-calibration fingerprint requires a new AI baseline for comparison.
+excerpts. In version 1.0.2, the 21-paragraph corpus and judge rubric were unchanged,
+but the calibration fingerprint changed and required a new AI baseline.
+
+The version 1.0.3 `technical-prose-v3` corpus adds five paragraphs for comparison
+axes, completed/current/planned status, event versus observation dates, known
+actions with unclear state terms, and source uncertainty versus editorial notes.
+Twelve new calibration pairs include faithful revisions, wrong comparisons or
+dates, lost operations, invented change history or failure states, and editing
+markers added to established facts. The five paragraphs add no detector targets
+but do reach the writer and judge. The corpus, calibration, and judge rubric all
+change; establish a fresh AI baseline with those fixed before measuring a review
+criteria change. v1 and v2 results cannot be compared directly with v3.
 
 ## What normal tests check
 
@@ -139,7 +150,7 @@ original 13-paragraph `technical-prose-v1` corpus. Its precision was 100, recall
 81.818, F1 90, and location accuracy 77.778. Later detector fixes brought the
 11-target MeCab results to 100 for all four metrics; literal recall remained
 81.818. Keep that historical report unchanged. It cannot be compared directly
-with v2: create a new baseline after expanding the corpus.
+with v2 or v3: create a new baseline after expanding the corpus.
 
 ## Compare review criteria with AI trials
 
@@ -253,5 +264,12 @@ location accuracy were all 100, with zero deltas. The suite passed 203 tests and
 External AI rewrite-and-judge trials have not yet been run for this change, so
 its readability and preservation improvement remains unmeasured.
 
+For the version 1.0.3 yomiyasu v1.0.8 adaptation, detector evaluation on v3 before
+and after the criteria change also retained 100 for all four metrics, with zero
+deltas. The suite passed 209 tests and 2,844 assertions with real MeCab/IPADIC,
+including paragraph and excluded-block boundaries and ordinary line wrapping.
+External AI rewrite-and-judge trials remain unexecuted for this change; these
+results establish detector and workflow regression checks only.
+
 [Development](development.md) · [Manuscript scoring](scoring.md) ·
 [Back to README](../README.md)

data/docs/references.md

@@ -21,6 +21,12 @@ structure, and final edits to the reviewer.
   and order before and after revision; preserve sentence function separately
   from plain or polite style. The new examples are original project fixtures.
   Markdown-specific bold fixes and numeric style thresholds are not imported.
+  The 1.0.3 update adapts [v1.0.8, commit 9b9a847](https://github.com/nanaism/yomiyasu/commit/9b9a84757ade524ef9d477f75c6ea13190079f97)
+  for comparison axes, tense and event/report dates, and retaining known actions
+  when state terms are unclear. Source uncertainty remains in the manuscript;
+  editorial questions remain in the separate report. Regression tests preserve
+  paragraph boundaries and ordinary line wrapping. These are project-authored
+  examples; Markdown-specific scanner and updater implementations are not imported.
 - [日本語技術文書の文章規範](https://gist.github.com/k16shikano/fd287c3133457c4fd8f5601d34aa817d):
   informs paragraph logic, evidence scope, and meaningful uncertainty. Applied
   here: the shared criteria start from each paragraph's technical purpose and

data/docs/review-workflow.md

@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ manuscripts. Numeric title changes
 are manual-review notices, and remaining candidates do not fail verification.
 `meaning_verified` remains `false`.
 
-Version 1.0.2 uses session schema 3 and requires the exact tool version saved in
+Version 1.0.3 uses session schema 3 and requires the exact tool version saved in
 the session. Preserve or finish an ongoing review with its original tool before
 establishing a new baseline in a separate directory.
 `review score` continues to support prose only and rejects `--scope`.

data/docs/rules-and-coverage.md

@@ -131,13 +131,13 @@ reports analyzer changes instead of treating results from different dictionaries
 as directly comparable. Prompt generation uses saved evidence and does not need
 MeCab. Changed rules or dictionary settings require a new scan.
 
-Version 1.0.2 uses session schema 3.
+Version 1.0.3 uses session schema 3.
 Sessions with a different schema or tool version cannot be loaded. Keep the original baseline for
 an ongoing review and finish it with the original version, or start a new review
 pass in a different directory:
 
 ```sh
-asciidoc-pubkit review scan book.adoc --output .pubkit/review-1.0.2
+asciidoc-pubkit review scan book.adoc --output .pubkit/review-1.0.3
 ```
 
 Severity describes review priority, not proof of an error. There is no AI-authorship

data/docs/writing.md

@@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ book explicitly requires one. Sentence splitting and punctuation changes must
 retain the original relationships; these are contextual review instructions,
 not automatic semantic checks. Saved sessions retain the criteria from their scan.
 
+The criteria also preserve the comparison axis, completed changes,
+current behavior, future plans, and the distinction between event dates and
+observation or report dates. An unclear state term does not authorize deleting
+its known action. Keep source-provided undecided or investigation status in the
+body; put reviewer doubts and questions in the separate report, without adding
+editing markers to the manuscript.
+
 ```sh
 asciidoc-pubkit writing criteria --lang ja
 asciidoc-pubkit writing prompt --lang ja --output writing-prompt.md
 ```
 
 For example, `--lang en` exits with an unsupported-language error. No English
-review or writing criteria are shipped in 1.0.2.
+review or writing criteria are shipped in 1.0.3.
 
 For a small trial, use `examples/book.adoc` as the scan input. Its Japanese
 paragraphs deliberately contain review candidates; its code block must remain

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit.rb

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ require 'pathname'
 require 'optparse'
 
 module AsciidocPubkit
-  VERSION = '1.0.2'
+  VERSION = '1.0.3'
   class Error < StandardError; end
 
   def self.hash_text(text)

metadata

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 --- !ruby/object:Gem::Specification
 name: asciidoc-pubkit
 version: !ruby/object:Gem::Version
-  version: 1.0.2
+  version: 1.0.3
 platform: ruby
 authors:
 - CyberGarage