Thank you for this — genuinely. This is one of the most valuable pieces of feedback the instrument has received, and exactly the kind of reading we hoped the raw files and notes would make possible.
A first pass on our side already confirms that several of your points land — including the change-start floor question and the paired-test point on fabrication-avoidance — and there is at least one place where we owe you a data-backed clarification rather than a concession. We are now working through the whole review carefully as a team: the front-card wording, the indexing inconsistency, how the verdict fields are presented, and what raw data should ship alongside the rendered reports.
We'll come back to this thread with a point-by-point response and the actual corrections — not just words. Thank you for spending this kind of time on our instrument; reviews like this are how it gets better.
— Tetracta