@pikaa-ai/pikaa 0.3.1 → 0.3.5

package/skills/scholar-evaluation/references/evaluation_framework.md

@@ -1,264 +0,0 @@
-# Evaluation Framework
-
-## What ScholarEval is—and is not
-
-The paper currently referenced by this skill is Moussa et al.,
-[*ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in
-Literature*](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16234), arXiv:2510.16234v2,
-revised 2026-02-28.
-
-The preprint describes an experimental retrieval-augmented system for evaluating
-research ideas on:
-
-- **soundness:** whether existing literature empirically supports proposed
-  methods; and
-- **contribution:** how an idea advances beyond prior work along comparison
-  dimensions.
-
-It reports a 117-idea, four-discipline dataset, coverage comparisons with
-expert-annotated review points, and a user study. Those studies evaluate that
-framework. They do **not** validate the generalized rubric in this skill as a
-psychometric instrument, establish stable score meaning across disciplines, or
-authorize use in consequential decisions.
-
-As of the dated source review, arXiv and the official project repository were
-the verified primary publication records. No peer-reviewed publication status
-was verified. Cite it as an arXiv preprint unless a later primary record is
-checked. See `references/source_ledger.md`.
-
-## Relationship to this skill
-
-This skill borrows the useful discipline of:
-
-1. defining what is being assessed;
-2. grounding judgments in traceable literature and work evidence;
-3. separating soundness-like questions from contribution-like questions; and
-4. auditing whether generated feedback covers expert concerns.
-
-It does not reproduce ScholarEval's model pipeline, prompts, retrieval system,
-dataset, or reported metrics. The bundled scripts do not call ScholarEval,
-search the web, invoke a model, or evaluate private documents.
-
-The template is a **locally governed developmental rubric**. Its default
-construct is:
-
-> Traceable support for a scholarly work's claims and methods: the degree to
-> which a work states a bounded question, situates its contribution, uses
-> fit-for-purpose methods, aligns analysis with claims, and documents
-> transparent and responsible practices using traceable evidence.
-
-This construct must be reviewed and adapted by relevant disciplinary experts.
-
-## Five template criteria
-
-### 1. Question and scope
-
-Review:
-
-- a clear, bounded question or objective;
-- significance rationale appropriate to the field and work stage;
-- assumptions, boundary conditions, and success conditions; and
-- feasibility of the proposed or reported scope.
-
-Do not treat fashionable topics, institutional affiliation, or venue
-expectations as evidence of significance.
-
-### 2. Literature grounding and contribution claim
-
-Review:
-
-- source-selection or search boundaries;
-- engagement with relevant and contrary evidence;
-- traceable primary sources for comparison claims;
-- comparison dimensions used to define the contribution; and
-- limits on novelty or advancement claims.
-
-Failure to find prior work does not establish novelty. Search coverage varies by
-database, language, date, indexing, terminology, discipline, and access.
-
-### 3. Method and design fit
-
-Review:
-
-- alignment between question, design, data or materials, and method;
-- sampling, corpus, inclusion, exclusion, and measurement choices;
-- alternatives and design rationale;
-- validity threats, bias, and mitigation;
-- ethics, consent, privacy, safety, and governance; and
-- detail sufficient for appropriate checking or reproduction.
-
-Use discipline-specific reporting and methods standards. Do not reward
-complexity for its own sake.
-
-### 4. Analysis, claims, and uncertainty
-
-Review:
-
-- fit of analytical methods to data and inferential target;
-- assumptions and diagnostics;
-- robustness, sensitivity, negative cases, and alternative explanations;
-- appropriate statistical or qualitative uncertainty;
-- alignment between results and claims; and
-- explicit limits on generalization and causal language.
-
-The rubric's `uncertainty` value is a rater-supplied bounded judgment range. It
-is not a sampling confidence interval, posterior interval, or standard error.
-
-### 5. Transparency, integrity, and reproducibility
-
-Review:
-
-- complete reporting, provenance, and stable evidence locators;
-- protocols, registrations, data, code, materials, and justified restrictions;
-- negative, null, and contradictory findings where relevant;
-- conflicts, limitations, corrections, and research-integrity safeguards;
-- accessible communication; and
-- transparent attribution of contributions.
-
-Open practice is not an absolute requirement when privacy, consent, safety,
-security, Indigenous data governance, commercial constraints, or other
-legitimate restrictions apply. Assess whether restrictions are justified and
-whether safe access or metadata alternatives are provided.
-
-## Scale semantics
-
-The template uses an ordinal 0–4 scale:
-
-- **0 — no assessable evidence**
-- **1 — limited support**
-- **2 — mixed support**
-- **3 — substantial support**
-- **4 — strong support**
-
-These are evidence anchors, not labels of a person or universal levels of
-research quality. The rubric defines criterion-specific anchors. Raters must use
-the anchor text, not intuition about what a number “usually means.”
-
-Do not convert the score to:
-
-- accept/reject or publication readiness;
-- exceptional/poor labels;
-- predicted success or impact;
-- person ranking; or
-- funding, hiring, promotion, tenure, admissions, award, or discipline advice.
-
-## Rating statuses
-
-Each criterion has exactly one status:
-
-- `rated`: score, uncertainty, evidence identifiers, and rationale reference
-  are required;
-- `missing`: evidence needed for assessment is absent or unavailable; score and
-  uncertainty are null; or
-- `not_applicable`: the criterion does not apply to this work under a documented
-  rationale; score and uncertainty are null.
-
-Do not encode missing or not-applicable as zero.
-
-## Transparent score math
-
-For rated criteria \(R\), score \(s_i\), and predeclared weight \(w_i\):
-
-\[
-\text{descriptive score}
-=
-\frac{\sum_{i \in R} w_i s_i}
-     {\sum_{i \in R} w_i}
-\]
-
-The score report separately provides:
-
-- total, applicable, rated, missing, and not-applicable weight;
-- coverage of applicable weight;
-- each weighted contribution;
-- the normalized descriptive score; and
-- a bounded aggregation of criterion uncertainty ranges.
-
-The uncertainty aggregation is not a confidence interval. Normalization does
-not make incomplete evaluations comparable. Review missingness before looking
-at any score.
-
-## Rubric development record
-
-Before replacing `content_validity_status: not_established`, document:
-
-1. the exact discipline, work type, language, stage, and intended use;
-2. construct definition and excluded constructs;
-3. literature and standard review used to draft criteria;
-4. disciplinary expert and stakeholder selection;
-5. systematic mapping of criteria to construct components;
-6. cognitive interviews or rater response-process evidence;
-7. accessibility and translation review;
-8. pilot sample and evidence-availability analysis;
-9. revisions, dissent, unresolved gaps, and approval; and
-10. the limits of any validity claim.
-
-Rubric provenance must identify the version, owner role, source identifiers,
-review date, and content-evidence reference.
-
-## Rater protocol
-
-At minimum:
-
-1. select qualified raters with relevant disciplinary and methods expertise;
-2. disclose conflicts and recuse where required;
-3. train on construct boundaries, anchors, evidence rules, missingness,
-   accessibility, bias, and privacy;
-4. calibrate on synthetic or authorized examples;
-5. rate independently before discussion;
-6. record evidence identifiers and uncertainty;
-7. summarize agreement and investigate systematic disagreements;
-8. resolve only through documented evidence and rationale, not forced averaging;
-9. monitor drift over time; and
-10. retrain, revise, or suspend the rubric when evidence warrants.
-
-The bundled agreement script reports exact agreement, within-one-step agreement,
-and mean absolute difference. Those summaries do not replace a
-design-appropriate reliability analysis. The rubric therefore separately
-records `inter_rater_reliability_status` and
-`inter_rater_reliability_ref`; the template leaves reliability not established.
-
-## Evidence traceability
-
-Each rated criterion must point to one or more entries in the evidence manifest.
-Each entry records:
-
-- pseudonymous evidence identifier;
-- linked criterion identifiers;
-- source type;
-- local stable locator;
-- local claim reference;
-- access status; and
-- verification status.
-
-Never place an excerpt or raw private document in the manifest. Keep source
-content in the authorized source system.
-
-## Weight sensitivity and order instability
-
-Weights are value judgments. Predeclare and justify them. Run
-`scripts/weight_sensitivity.py` before interpreting a composite.
-
-The script increases and decreases one weight at a time and renormalizes the
-weights. It reports score ranges and whether pairwise ordinal relationships
-among scholarly works change. Instability is evidence that an apparent order
-depends on contestable weights.
-
-The output must not be used to rank people or decide a high-impact outcome.
-Even stable ordering does not establish validity.
-
-## Interpretation template
-
-For each criterion, qualified reviewers should record:
-
-1. status and evidence references;
-2. observed evidence;
-3. interpretation against the anchor;
-4. score and uncertainty, if rated;
-5. missing or not-applicable rationale;
-6. disciplinary and stage context;
-7. strengths and limitations; and
-8. non-prescriptive improvement options.
-
-Conclude with construct, provenance, coverage, agreement, sensitivity, bias,
-privacy, accessibility, and validity limitations—not a decision recommendation.

package/skills/scholar-evaluation/references/local_tooling.md

@@ -1,232 +0,0 @@
-# Local Deterministic Tooling
-
-## Security properties
-
-Every bundled script:
-
-- uses only the Python standard library;
-- reads bounded local `.json` or `.csv` files;
-- rejects symbolic-link inputs, duplicate JSON keys, excessive depth or size,
-  non-finite numbers, unknown schema fields, and common private-application
-  fields;
-- uses fixed schemas and never executes supplied text;
-- has no network, model, credential, environment-file, dynamic-code,
-  executable-serialization, or child-process behavior;
-- writes only minimized JSON reports and refuses to overwrite by default; and
-- does not copy evidence excerpts or raw source documents.
-
-Inputs are limited to 2 MiB, JSON depth 20, 25,000 structure nodes, 50 rubric
-criteria, 50 comparison evaluations, and 20,000 agreement rows. Outputs are
-limited to 2 MiB.
-
-Use an authorized local directory. Keep private source documents in the
-institution's records system and reference them with opaque local identifiers.
-
-## Templates
-
-- `assets/rubric_template.json` — valid structure, but deliberately records
-  content validity as not established.
-- `assets/evaluation_template.json` — structurally valid all-missing example.
-- `assets/evidence_manifest_template.json` — synthetic local-reference records.
-- `assets/process_checklist_template.json` — fail-closed unconfirmed controls.
-- `assets/ratings_template.csv` — pseudonymous synthetic agreement data.
-
-Copy a template into an authorized working directory before editing it. Do not
-replace synthetic identifiers with names or contact information.
-
-## 1. Rubric schema validation
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/validate_rubric.py \
-  --rubric assets/rubric_template.json
-```
-
-The validator checks:
-
-- fixed intended use and scholarly-work unit;
-- complete prohibited-use list;
-- construct, boundaries, limitations, and provenance;
-- content-validity status and reference;
-- bounded scale and complete anchors;
-- unique criteria and weights summing to one;
-- absence of common scored proxy measures;
-- required rater training, calibration, agreement, separately recorded
-  inter-rater reliability status, and drift controls; and
-- committee, conflict, appeal, accessibility, data-protection, subgroup, and
-  review-cycle governance.
-
-A rubric can be structurally `valid` while warning that content validity is not
-documented. Structural validity is not psychometric validity.
-
-## 2. Bounded descriptive scoring
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/calculate_scores.py \
-  --rubric assets/rubric_template.json \
-  --evaluation assets/evaluation_template.json \
-  --output /tmp/scholar-score.json
-```
-
-The evaluation contains one entry for every criterion:
-
-```json
-{
-  "criterion_id": "method_design",
-  "status": "rated",
-  "score": 3,
-  "uncertainty": 0.5,
-  "evidence_ids": ["EVIDENCE-SYNTHETIC-METHOD"],
-  "rationale_ref": "LOCAL-RATING-RATIONALE-METHOD"
-}
-```
-
-For `missing` or `not_applicable`, `score` and `uncertainty` must be null and
-`evidence_ids` must be empty. A local rationale reference remains required.
-
-The output reports weighted contributions, coverage, missing and
-not-applicable weight, normalized score, and a bounded uncertainty range. It
-contains no quality label, threshold, decision, or recommendation.
-
-## 3. Evidence traceability
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/check_traceability.py \
-  --rubric assets/rubric_template.json \
-  --evaluation assets/evaluation_template.json \
-  --evidence assets/evidence_manifest_template.json
-```
-
-The checker verifies that:
-
-- manifest, evaluation, work, and classification identifiers match;
-- every evidence identifier is unique;
-- every rated evidence reference resolves;
-- evidence is linked to the criterion that cites it;
-- source and access types are allowed; and
-- evidence is available and verified.
-
-It reports identifiers, paths, and counts only. It never opens or copies the
-referenced source.
-
-## 4. Weight sensitivity and rank instability
-
-Provide two to 50 evaluation JSON files for distinct scholarly works:
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/weight_sensitivity.py \
-  --rubric assets/rubric_template.json \
-  --evaluation /tmp/work-a-evaluation.json \
-  --evaluation /tmp/work-b-evaluation.json \
-  --delta 0.2 \
-  --output /tmp/weight-sensitivity.json
-```
-
-For each criterion, the script multiplies its weight by `1-delta` and
-`1+delta`, renormalizes all weights to one, and recomputes descriptive scores.
-It reports:
-
-- every scenario and its exact weights;
-- each work's score and coverage per scenario;
-- score ranges;
-- base ordinal order; and
-- pairwise order changes.
-
-The base order is included solely to detect instability. It is not a ranking
-recommendation and must never be used for people or high-impact decisions.
-
-## 5. Inter-rater agreement summaries
-
-The CSV header must be exactly:
-
-```text
-evaluation_id,work_id,rater_id,criterion_id,status,score
-```
-
-Use pseudonymous rater identifiers. Run:
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/summarize_agreement.py \
-  --rubric assets/rubric_template.json \
-  --ratings assets/ratings_template.csv \
-  --output /tmp/agreement-summary.json
-```
-
-For each criterion and overall, the report includes:
-
-- pair observations;
-- exact agreement rate;
-- within-one-scale-step agreement rate;
-- mean absolute difference;
-- overlap, rated, missing, and not-applicable counts.
-
-Rater identifiers are not emitted. These are descriptive agreement summaries,
-not chance-corrected reliability, generalizability, validity, or fairness
-evidence.
-
-## 6. Bias and process checklist
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/check_process.py \
-  --process assets/process_checklist_template.json
-```
-
-The template is intentionally unconfirmed and therefore does not pass. Complete
-it only from documented local records. The checker covers:
-
-- qualified committee and training;
-- conflicts and recusal;
-- appeal and correction;
-- accessibility and accommodations;
-- purpose limitation, minimization, access, retention, and output controls;
-- construct, provenance, content evidence, rater quality, agreement,
-  inter-rater reliability review, uncertainty, missingness, traceability, and
-  sensitivity;
-- stakeholder, disciplinary, subgroup, and protected-attribute safeguards;
-- no automation, person ranking, or decision recommendation; and
-- drift, unintended-consequence, and periodic review.
-
-`high_impact_use: true` or any unconfirmed decision control blocks the process.
-The checklist does not authorize a prohibited use.
-
-## 7. Report scaffold
-
-Generate a minimized scaffold:
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/generate_report_scaffold.py \
-  --rubric assets/rubric_template.json \
-  --evaluation assets/evaluation_template.json \
-  --output /tmp/developmental-report-scaffold.json
-```
-
-Optional companion reports:
-
-```bash
-PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 scripts/generate_report_scaffold.py \
-  --rubric assets/rubric_template.json \
-  --evaluation /tmp/work-a-evaluation.json \
-  --traceability /tmp/traceability.json \
-  --agreement /tmp/agreement-summary.json \
-  --sensitivity /tmp/weight-sensitivity.json \
-  --process /tmp/process-check.json \
-  --output /tmp/developmental-report-scaffold.json
-```
-
-The scaffold includes:
-
-- construct and provenance status;
-- descriptive scores and uncertainty;
-- empty local-reference slots for evidence, strengths, limitations, and
-  improvement options;
-- minimized quality-assurance statuses; and
-- fixed limitations and human-review fields.
-
-It does not draft findings from source documents or issue a decision.
-
-## Exit behavior
-
-- exit `0`: requested calculation or validation completed successfully;
-- exit `2`: invalid, blocked, incomplete, failed traceability, or unsafe input.
-
-Errors contain only stable codes and JSON paths, never supplied values. Use
-`--force` only when replacing a known local report.

package/skills/scholar-evaluation/references/responsible_assessment.md

@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
-# Responsible Assessment and Safety Boundary
-
-## Non-negotiable boundary
-
-This skill is for **developmental review of scholarly works** and for auditing a
-low-stakes assessment process. It must not automate, recommend, materially
-influence, or provide a score for:
-
-- hiring, promotion, or tenure;
-- admissions;
-- grant or other funding decisions;
-- prizes, honors, or awards;
-- discipline, dismissal, or sanctions; or
-- any other high-impact personnel decision.
-
-Do not rank people. Do not convert several judgments into a single composite
-person score. Do not infer a person's ability, character, integrity, future
-performance, protected characteristics, or institutional worth.
-
-This boundary remains in force when a human is nominally “in the loop.”
-Checklists, committees, or disclaimers do not make a prohibited workflow safe.
-If a request crosses the boundary, stop and offer one of these alternatives:
-
-1. developmental comments on a public or authorized scholarly work, with no
-   person comparison or decision advice;
-2. an audit of whether an existing assessment process follows responsible
-   assessment principles, without processing applications or recommending an
-   outcome; or
-3. neutral documentation of criteria for review by the organization's legal,
-   privacy, accessibility, labor, ethics, and disciplinary experts.
-
-## Allowed scope
-
-Examples of allowed uses, subject to authorization and data protection:
-
-- feedback on a draft paper, protocol, research idea, or literature synthesis;
-- a retrospective methods or reporting review;
-- calibration exercises using synthetic or public scholarly works;
-- checking evidence traceability;
-- describing the sensitivity of work-level scores to rubric weights; and
-- auditing a low-stakes evaluation design for missing governance controls.
-
-“Publication readiness” and “accept/reject” recommendations are excluded.
-Describe evidence, limitations, and improvement options instead.
-
-## Accountable human process
-
-For any organizational use, an accountable committee must own the process. It
-must include relevant disciplinary and assessment-methods expertise and must:
-
-- publish the construct, intended use, rubric, weights, evidence requirements,
-  and interpretation limits before reviewing;
-- record member qualifications, training, calibration, and drift checks;
-- disclose conflicts, require recusal, and maintain a conflict record;
-- provide an understandable notice and a meaningful appeal or correction route;
-- provide accessible materials and reasonable accommodations;
-- define lawful purpose, access controls, minimization, retention, and deletion;
-- review disciplinary, language, career-path, disability, and subgroup effects;
-- document disagreements and uncertainty rather than force consensus; and
-- periodically evaluate and revise the evaluation.
-
-No script in this skill is the accountable reviewer. Script output is a
-descriptive record for qualified human interpretation.
-
-## Qualitative-first evidence
-
-Start with the values and construct, not the data that happen to be available.
-Use evidence that directly bears on the criterion:
-
-- the work's questions, methods, analyses, outputs, limitations, and provenance;
-- datasets, software, protocols, materials, registrations, replications, and
-  negative or null findings where relevant;
-- transparent records of responsible practices and justified restrictions;
-- contribution records, including CRediT roles when useful, without treating a
-  role as proof of quality; and
-- influence on policy, practice, communities, teaching, infrastructure, or
-  knowledge, when this is within the stated construct and supported by evidence.
-
-Ask what is missing, inaccessible, contested, or not applicable. A missing item
-is not a zero. A not-applicable item is not evidence of deficiency.
-
-## Prohibited proxies and contextual indicators
-
-Do not score or infer quality from:
-
-- Journal Impact Factor or other journal-level measures;
-- h-index, i10-index, publication counts, or citation counts;
-- altmetrics or attention counts;
-- journal, conference, institutional, geographic, or employer prestige;
-- venue identity or ranking; or
-- author affiliation, career path, network, or reputation.
-
-The bundled rubric validator rejects common proxy-measure criteria.
-
-If a qualified reviewer has a legitimate, predeclared reason to mention a
-quantitative indicator descriptively outside the bundled scoring tools, record:
-
-1. the exact construct and purpose;
-2. why the indicator bears on that construct at the correct unit of analysis;
-3. source, version, query date, coverage, exclusions, and data quality;
-4. field, language, output-type, career-stage, and time-window effects;
-5. uncertainty, missingness, gaming risks, and known biases;
-6. why qualitative evidence is insufficient by itself; and
-7. a statement that the indicator is not a direct measure of quality.
-
-Never use an indicator merely because it is available. Never hide several
-different indicators inside an opaque composite.
-
-## Rubric evidence and psychometric caution
-
-A rubric is a measurement claim. Before operational use, record:
-
-- **construct:** what is and is not being assessed;
-- **intended interpretation and use:** the exact meaning claimed for scores;
-- **provenance:** who designed and approved criteria, anchors, and weights;
-- **content evidence:** disciplinary expert and stakeholder review of coverage;
-- **response process:** how raters interpret anchors and use evidence;
-- **rater protocol:** selection, training, calibration, qualification, and drift;
-- **agreement/reliability:** a design-appropriate analysis and its uncertainty;
-- **fairness:** accessibility, subgroup, language, and disciplinary review;
-- **traceability:** stable evidence references for each rating;
-- **missing/not applicable:** explicit statuses and rationales;
-- **weight sensitivity:** whether plausible weights change descriptive results;
-- **consequences:** gaming, burden, goal displacement, and other effects; and
-- **revision:** review date, owner, change record, and retirement criteria.
-
-Do not call a rubric “validated” because experts reviewed it once, raters agreed,
-or scores correlated with another judgment. Validity concerns the evidence for a
-specific interpretation and use. Reliability or agreement alone is not validity.
-
-The provided rubric explicitly records `content_validity_status` as
-`not_established`. Replace that status only when a qualified team has documented
-appropriate evidence for the exact discipline, population, language, and use.
-
-## Bias and subgroup review
-
-Perform the fairness review outside these scripts in an authorized environment.
-Do not place protected-attribute records in rubric, evaluation, evidence, or
-ratings files.
-
-A qualified review should examine, where lawful and appropriate:
-
-- access to the measured construct and accommodation effectiveness;
-- differential missingness and evidence availability;
-- criteria that privilege particular languages, methods, fields, institutions,
-  career patterns, or resource levels;
-- rater severity, drift, and disagreement patterns;
-- differential effects of weights and not-applicable decisions;
-- false precision and threshold effects;
-- burden, gaming, and chilling of collaboration or risky research; and
-- whether the evaluation should be redesigned or stopped.
-
-Report sample limitations and uncertainty. Do not expose small cells or attempt
-to infer sensitive characteristics.
-
-## Privacy and data protection
-
-Use only public scholarly works, synthetic records, or deidentified low-stakes
-records processed under an approved local purpose. Do not put raw private
-applications, CVs, recommendation letters, reviewer identities, contact
-details, protected attributes, or source-document text into tool inputs or
-outputs.
-
-The bundled formats contain only:
-
-- pseudonymous work, evaluation, rater, criterion, and evidence identifiers;
-- bounded scores, statuses, and uncertainty;
-- local stable references; and
-- minimized control attestations and aggregate summaries.
-
-Keep source documents in the authorized records system. Use local references to
-them. Apply least privilege, retention limits, deletion, incident handling, and
-any stricter local law or policy.
-
-## Accessibility
-
-Provide the rubric, evidence requirements, notices, feedback, and appeal
-process in accessible formats. Do not penalize an accommodation, assistive
-technology, language variant, or accessible presentation choice. Confirm that
-the rubric measures the intended construct rather than fluency with an
-inaccessible interface or format.
-
-## Communicating results
-
-Lead with qualitative, traceable findings. For every criterion:
-
-1. cite local evidence references;
-2. state the rating status;
-3. distinguish observed evidence from interpretation;
-4. report uncertainty and disagreement;
-5. state missing or not-applicable evidence;
-6. explain context and limitations; and
-7. offer non-prescriptive improvement options.
-
-Do not label a person, declare a work “top-tier,” predict success, recommend a
-decision, or conceal uncertainty behind a decimal.