# Second read (GPT-6 Astra via Codex, high): Code It Yourself after amendments, 5 October 2026

Prompt: `REREAD_PROMPT.md`. Verbatim final message below.

**ADOPT AMENDED**

As represented by the diff, findings 1 and 3–6 are substantively addressed: approximate labels, relative group differences, scale range, recoding limitations, sampling caveats, and preset/item descriptions. Release finding 2 is also addressed: `state.json` now discloses the favourable direction, post-analysis choice, and stated grounds. Two amendments remain:

1. **Moderate — accuracy claim remains too broad.** “Agrees with the full analysis to within about 0.1 points” promises this for arbitrary visitor codings. The new threshold explanation reinforces that implication. The four presets differ from their embedded reference values by 0.004–0.067 points; that establishes no general bound. Replace that sentence in “Where this comes from,” and the first “What would count against this” bullet, with:
   > For the four recorded presets, the browser’s point estimates differ from the reference values embedded here by less than 0.1 points. This does not establish an error bound for other codings or interval endpoints. The displayed intervals and labels are approximate and may differ from the full analysis.

2. **Minor — review status is stale.** Replace “This page itself has had no outside read of its own.” with:
   > This page received an outside read that returned HOLD. Commit 26c86c7 addressed that read; the follow-up verdict is ADOPT AMENDED, pending the amendments listed in that review.

No other new substantive overstatement identified within the requested scope.

## What would count against this

- A narrow read of one commit and one page; one run.