asciidoc-pubkit 1.2.0 → 1.2.1

checksums.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 SHA256:
-  metadata.gz: 6148912a889b61a943c121c307ae696c49f861f7cb734265af0b1a9333d50966
-  data.tar.gz: ce07e6f2d66c7ab3e23a8dd39325b297f9f3d3f6c715fb001c2604052307f999
+  metadata.gz: e36fd7643b859273dd775f683b1ff318ef8dfb241526a35bcff9c782498640df
+  data.tar.gz: f9dc7e9f69a5215f533caf0a04956db74d4c1bfe83e521de9be3108903a542f4
 SHA512:
-  metadata.gz: a08ca5477ee8785bbe7623a108e2cd22ad8c1f4c6900e7500d446502674007db5b29192c9e02abdeacb931a26a78a45070b6f19b57c0de51c4bd20d2da884afe
-  data.tar.gz: ee0b90c82c362f7b0da5b1807cf187ad2d330c24a5ce11cfa599f25d50c35fa99814bb154d148f3b747c87bfeaf965dea76f22e283e8e2d53685341203239bf7
+  metadata.gz: 1be8e3e0c36fe561ed6bdf7c02140dafcfc8cdd5e6db36f3e8d2e0f8a4f201ceb622c5ed2447ae829c13d8242b8937815468b06eeed02495f501bee6b1c58ccf
+  data.tar.gz: '089d16921b8fcfd50a78e284262f6e415c6399eee0ee18bb17b36755bdcaa3158a73467f673443adf1ebede7c56246f3716cd34f6e8f578795aca8b7b39e3661'

data/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -2,6 +2,18 @@
 
 ## Unreleased
 
+## 1.2.1 - 2026-10-12
+
+- Compare faithful technical terminology independently of capability/behavior
+  preservation; honor author wording preferences even for synonyms. Reject keep
+  rationales based on unsupported stronger alternatives. Clarify selection,
+  partition, logical separation, language independence and workflow integration
+  in shared criteria, generated prompts and the bundled review skill. Add advisory
+  `組み込む` candidates in MeCab/literal modes and eleven calibration pairs (70
+  total). Pass editorial constraints to the optional evaluator without gold
+  judgments. Old sessions retain saved criteria; mechanical verification is
+  unchanged. No AI proofreading improvement has been measured.
+
 ## 1.2.0 - 2026-10-12
 
 - Require concrete alternative comparisons for broad or everyday wording in

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 1.2.0 provides document inspection, explicit prose-only mechanical
+Version 1.2.1 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 1.2.0.
+The following commands are available in version 1.2.1.
 
 | Feature | Commands | Behavior |
 | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ The 1.2.0 [sentence-ending guidance](docs/writing.md#writing-commands)
 adds contextual revision and keep examples, preserving capabilities, uncertainty,
 comparison strength, and body sentences separately from heading form. It adds
 no detector terms or automatic replacements; development calibration includes
-59 pairs, without a measured claim of improved AI proofreading.
+70 pairs, without a measured claim of improved AI proofreading.
 
 The 1.2.0 [default rules](docs/rules-and-coverage.md) add `流れ` as an
 `abstract-reference` hint for prose and list text. Review processing order,
@@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ everyday wording. Review prompts reject automatic keep judgments and passage
 summaries used as candidate decisions; missing comparisons remain pending.
 Verification continues to check mechanical preservation only.
 
+Version 1.2.1 [compares terminology independently of modality](data/writing/ja/criteria.md#compare-terminology-independently-of-modality), honors author terminology preferences, and adds advisory `組み込む` candidates. See [faithful terminology comparisons](docs/review-workflow.md#faithful-terminology-comparisons).
+
 Version 1.0.1 extended the [shared writing criteria](docs/writing.md#writing-commands)
 with structural comparison before and after revision and preservation of sentence
 functions and plain or polite style. The [development evaluation](docs/prose-evaluation.md)
@@ -166,7 +168,7 @@ 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 v1.2.0. A new
+baselines and start a new review in a separate directory with v1.2.1. A new
 scan cannot verify preservation relative to an earlier baseline.
 
 ## Documentation

data/data/review-rules.ja.yml

@@ -95,6 +95,11 @@ terms:
     - 作れる
     - 作れます
     - 作れません
+    - 組み込む
+    - 組み込みます
+    - 組み込めます
+    - 組み込まない
+    - 組み込めません
     - 組み立てられます
     - 組み合わせます
     - 積み重なります
@@ -150,7 +155,10 @@ terms:
     question: Identify the purpose, operation, and result, then compare a more precise
       verb or established technical term using the shared criteria. An understandable
       original is not by itself a reason to keep it. Record the alternative and the
-      passage-specific comparison. Preserve negation, conditions, and responsibility.
+      passage-specific comparison. Compare faithful alternatives with the same modality;
+      synonymy alone is not a keep reason when technical terminology is requested.
+      Do not justify keep by rejecting an unsupported stronger alternative.
+      Preserve negation, conditions, and responsibility.
   vague-degree:
     terms:
     - 浅い
@@ -306,6 +314,9 @@ verbs:
   - 渡す
   決まる:
   - 決まる
+  組み込む:
+  - 組み込む
+  - 組み込める
   組み立てる:
   - 組み立てる
   組み合わせる:

data/data/writing/ja/criteria.md

@@ -232,6 +232,38 @@ require polite style. Resolve unintended style mixing separately from each
 sentence's function; changing `する` to `します` must not change advice into
 an asserted operation. Do not vary endings just to make these functions uniform.
 
+## Compare terminology independently of modality
+
+Preserve whether a sentence describes a capability, actual behavior, a condition,
+or an obligation while independently choosing the most accurate wording.
+`選べます → 選択できます` preserves capability; it is not the same change as
+`選べます → 選びます`. When the operation is technical selection, prefer
+`選択できます`, especially when the author requests technical terminology.
+An alternative need not change the facts to improve terminological consistency.
+"Same meaning" and "the referent is clear" alone do not justify keep. An explicit
+terminology preference takes precedence over an otherwise acceptable plain synonym.
+
+Compare the strongest faithful alternative, not an unsupported or shortened one
+that is easy to reject. Rejecting `物理的に隔離する` does not justify keeping
+`分ける` when `別の処理として実装する` explains the supported operation.
+Do not remove conditions or information from an alternative and then use that
+loss as the reason to retain the original. Compare full sentences or paragraphs
+with the same facts, modality and author requirements.
+
+| Wording | Operation-specific comparison |
+| --- | --- |
+| `次の操作を選べます` | `次の操作を選択できます` preserves the available choice and names the selection operation. |
+| `データを複数の部分に分けます` | `データを分割します` describes partitioning one object; do not use it for every separation. |
+| `許可判断と出力検査を分けています` | Identify both purposes and timings: `操作前の許可判定と、モデル入力前の出力検査を別の処理として実装しています`. Do not invent physical isolation. |
+| `両者の実装言語を分けられます` | `呼び出し元を、実行基盤とは異なる言語で実装できます` states language independence. Languages themselves are not partitioned. |
+| `固定した処理へ行動選択を組み込めます` | Name the workflow stage, the actor selecting operations, the input used for selection, and the limits on delegated operations. A vague `統合できます` or `実装できます` alone is not an improvement. |
+
+`組み込む` is not a banned word. Library embedding can be an established operation
+when the host application, API and integration method are specified. Retain a
+plain verb only after comparing the faithful alternative and explaining a real
+loss or a context-specific readability benefit consistent with author preferences.
+A failed candidate comparison is pending, not evidence that the original is best.
+
 ## Review sentence endings by their role
 
 Read the complete sentence and neighboring sentences before judging its ending.
@@ -239,13 +271,13 @@ First identify whether it announces the section's scope, describes an actual
 operation, offers a capability, gives a checking procedure, or reports history
 or a future expectation. Then name its actor, object, condition, and consequence.
 Revise only when a more direct explanation preserves those relationships;
-otherwise retain the original wording and explain its role.
+otherwise compare the wording independently of its sentence role before retaining it.
 
 | Ending and context | Decision to consider |
 | --- | --- |
 | `注目します`, `明らかにします`, `確認します`, or `たどります` in an introduction | Keep a useful scope or reading-order guide. If it only repeats an announcement, state the supported comparison, operation, or question directly; do not invent its answer. |
 | `戻します` or `組み立てます` in an operation description | Keep it when the transferred result, recipient, or constructed input is clear. Do not replace it with a noun or jargon merely to vary the ending. |
-| `使えます`, `組み込めます`, `選べます`, or `作れます` | Preserve the available option and its conditions. Changing to `使います` or `選びます` can falsely assert actual or automatic execution. |
+| `使えます`, `組み込めます`, `選べます`, or `作れます` | Preserve the available option and its conditions, not necessarily the original verb. Compare an equally potential technical expression or a concrete explanation; do not use the risks of `使います` or `選びます` to reject `適用できます` or `選択できます`. |
 | `分かりません` | Identify whether the missing evidence prevents judgment, confirmation, or identification. Use `判断できません` or `確認できません` only when that operation fits; preserve what remains unknown. |
 | `別です` or `同じではありません` | Name the compared objects and the property, purpose, or evidence that differs. Distinguish definite non-identity from insufficient evidence to infer a result. |
 | `確認します` or `調べます` in a procedure | Keep an actual check, including its target, condition, and timing. Do not turn it into a capability or a claim that the check succeeded. |
@@ -257,8 +289,10 @@ Both retain the missing evidence and the same judgment target. By contrast,
 `処理結果が分かりません` cannot become `処理は失敗しました`: an unknown
 outcome is not an established failure.
 
-Retain `利用者は候補Aと候補Bから選べます` when it states an available choice;
-`利用者は候補Aと候補Bから選びます` would assert that selection occurs. Retain
+`利用者は候補Aと候補Bから選べます` states an available choice;
+`利用者は候補Aと候補Bから選択できます` retains that choice while using technical
+selection wording. Compare this faithful alternative before keeping the plain verb.
+`利用者は候補Aと候補Bから選びます` would instead assert that selection occurs. Retain
 `実行側はツール結果をモデルへ戻します` when it describes the transfer;
 `実行結果のフィードバック` would lose the sentence's actor and predicate.
 

data/docs/installation.md

@@ -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-1.2.0.gem
+gem install ./asciidoc-pubkit-1.2.1.gem
 asciidoc-pubkit --version
 ```
 

data/docs/prose-evaluation.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ readability, and meaning preservation separate so that a clearer rewrite cannot
 hide a lost condition or invented fact.
 
 This guide describes the development checkout, including the
-`technical-prose-v3` corpus and 59 revision calibration pairs. The sentence-ending
+`technical-prose-v3` corpus and 70 revision calibration pairs. The sentence-ending
 criteria and twelve additional pairs, plus the flow guidance and four further
 pairs, are included in version 1.2.0.
 The evaluation runner is not an
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ of Japanese writing.
 | [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 59 manual revision pairs with expected `accept`, `reject`, or `needs-evidence` dispositions |
+| [prose_evaluation.ja.json](../test/fixtures/prose_evaluation.ja.json) | Detection examples and 70 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
@@ -100,6 +100,15 @@ fresh AI baseline using the expanded calibration and rubric before comparing
 criteria. Normal tests check fixture integrity and prompt delivery, not whether
 an AI accepts or rejects each pair correctly.
 
+The version 1.2.1 terminology update adds eleven calibration pairs covering technical
+selection without a modality change, explicit author preferences, logical separation
+versus invented physical isolation, language independence versus partition, data
+partition, concrete workflow descriptions and legitimate library embedding. The
+optional judge receives each pair's `editorial_constraints` without its expected
+disposition or gold reason. These fixtures and deterministic plumbing tests do not
+establish improved model proofreading; an explicitly requested AI evaluation is
+required to measure that behavior.
+
 The version 1.2.0 `流れ` guidance adds four calibration pairs: a more specific
 information-transfer description, a clear operation with its condition retained,
 and rejected substitutions that invent lifecycle stages or remove a success

data/docs/review-workflow.md

@@ -296,6 +296,23 @@ verify check the value against the session language. A non-Japanese language in
 `--lang`, `review.language`, or an explicit AsciiDoc `:lang:` attribute is rejected.
 An omitted `:lang:` attribute uses the selected review language.
 
+### Faithful terminology comparisons
+
+Preserve modality separately from wording: `選べます → 選択できます` retains
+capability, while `選べます → 選びます` asserts behavior. Apply author terminology
+preferences even when both expressions are understandable. Compare the strongest
+supported alternative with the same facts and conditions; rejecting invented
+physical isolation does not justify keeping vague separation wording. The saved
+shared criteria distinguish data partition, responsibility separation, independent
+implementation languages and concrete workflow integration.
+
+`組み込む` and its potential/negative inflections are advisory `weak-predicate`
+candidates in the packaged Japanese rules. They are not prohibited expressions or
+replacement instructions; named library embedding may be appropriate. Custom rules
+still replace the packaged rules. Review author-supplied concerns and paragraphs
+without matches as well. Existing sessions retain their saved rules and criteria;
+start a new scan to apply the updated guidance, preserving earlier evidence.
+
 ### Verify
 
 ```sh

data/docs/rules-and-coverage.md

@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ 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.
 
-Versions 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 use session schema 3, but sessions still require their exact tool version.
+Versions 1.1.0, 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 use session schema 3, but sessions still require their exact tool version.
 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:

data/docs/writing.md

@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@ A noun-phrase heading policy does not apply to body sentences. These examples
 are contextual decisions, not new detector terms or replacement rules. See
 [Sentence-ending criteria](../data/writing/ja/criteria.md#review-sentence-endings-by-their-role).
 
+Terminology comparison is independent of sentence function. A technical synonym
+can improve consistency while retaining the same capability or condition; honor
+explicit author preferences rather than keeping a plain verb just because it is
+understandable. Compare a faithful full explanation, not an unsupported stronger
+alternative or a shortened passage. See
+[Terminology and modality](../data/writing/ja/criteria.md#compare-terminology-independently-of-modality).
+
 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
@@ -48,7 +55,7 @@ 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 1.2.0.
+review or writing criteria are shipped in 1.2.1.
 
 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/examples/skills/review-asciidoc-manuscript/SKILL.md

@@ -48,6 +48,12 @@ records must explain the specific comparison, not merely summarize the passage.
 Reporting helpers may count explicit decisions but must not create keep decisions
 or inherit paragraph summaries. Missing comparisons remain pending.
 
+Compare the strongest supported alternative with the same facts and modality.
+Do not reject a requested technical synonym merely because it preserves meaning;
+apply the author's terminology preference. Rejecting an unsupported stronger
+alternative does not establish keep. Recheck a retained passage when its comparison
+changes the claim, omits source information, or fails to address the author's concern.
+
 Retain phase-end results because later scopes can legitimately make older
 sessions fail. For further corrections after another scope has changed, start a
 separate scoped pass and retain the prior evidence. Run the project's requested

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit/session.rb

@@ -462,6 +462,7 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
         Record each reviewed #{unit} ID and each candidate ID with revise, keep, or needs-evidence and a reason grounded in that passage. For keep, identify the concrete referent, operation, condition, necessary distinction, or established terminology that justifies retaining it. A shared generic reason does not establish individual review. Appending a source quotation to a stock reason is still insufficient.
         For each candidate decision, identify its concrete role or claim, the evidence and source location, the direct wording considered, and why that alternative is better or why the original wording is necessary. For needs-evidence, name the missing support instead of inventing a role or revision. A quotation supports evidence but does not substitute for that explanation. For role metaphors such as 入口, apply the shared criteria even when a nearby identifier makes the referent clear.
         For broad or everyday wording, record a concrete alternative and a passage-specific comparison before choosing keep or revise. Apply the saved shared terminology criteria even when the original is understandable. A passage summary is not a wording comparison.
+        Compare the strongest faithful alternative with the same facts and modality. Same meaning alone does not justify keep when established technical terminology or the author's wording preference is better served. Rejecting an unsupported stronger alternative is not a comparison with a supported improvement. Assess concerns supplied by the author even when the detector emits no candidate for that wording.
         Reporting helpers may validate and count explicit assessments but must not manufacture keep decisions or inherit a paragraph summary as a candidate assessment. Missing or insufficient comparisons remain pending; they are not needs-evidence unless factual support is missing. Automatic decisions and zero pending counts cannot establish completion.
         Never infer revise or keep from whether the matched string survives, disappears, or changes. Do not bulk-assign keep to unchanged #{unit}s or remaining candidates. An unreviewed item stays pending; use needs-evidence only after review identifies missing evidence.
         Review #{unit}s without candidates against the shared criteria as well. For concerns outside the editable scope, report the location and a separate out-of-scope proposal; do not count protection as an editorial keep decision or edit protected content.

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit.rb

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ require 'pathname'
 require 'optparse'
 
 module AsciidocPubkit
-  VERSION = '1.2.0'
+  VERSION = '1.2.1'
   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: 1.2.0
+  version: 1.2.1
 platform: ruby
 authors:
 - CyberGarage