v4.35.0

Fixed — ordinary Chinese prose was being read as measurements

A second independent acceptance run over the fixture CSVs hit sixteen
factuality findings. Six were the gate doing its job, including four ratios the
author had computed from two table cells. Nine were the checker mistaking
Chinese for arithmetic, and the cost was not the blocked claims — it was that
the only way past the gate was to rewrite good sentences into stilted ones with
the figures removed, which is the opposite of what the gate exists to protect.

• A Chinese numeral in front of a generic classifier counts the prose, not
  the data. 「自成一個低價高週轉的次市場」 is an indefinite article;
  「受三項資料限制」 counts the list that follows it; 「其餘七個品類」 counts rows
  the reader can already see. All of them were read as the quantities 1, 3 and
  7 and refused for not appearing in the evidence — seven of the sixteen
  findings. 個, 项/項, 件, 種 and 類 after a Chinese-form numeral are no longer
  quantities. The digit form is: 「6 個價格帶」 is still checked, and so are 三筆,
  兩年, 五家 and 三個月, whose classifiers name real things.

• A bound the sentence sets is not a value it read. 「其餘七個品類沒有一個
  超過 15%」 was refused for stating a 15% the data never states. It does not
  need to — the sentence asserts a ceiling, and the largest value in the table
  it cites is 14.15%. The evidence side has always treated <0.01 as a limit
  rather than a reading; the claim side now does the same for 不超過, 未超過,
  不到, 低於, 至多, 至少 and the 以下/以上/以內 suffixes.

• 「」 is emphasis at least as often as quotation. A phrase the author had
  explicitly introduced as their own reading — 「應讀成…」 — was refused for not
  appearing verbatim in the source. 「」 now counts as quotation only after a
  reporting verb (評論寫道「…」); 『』 and the ASCII and curly double quotes are
  unchanged.

Adversarial recall holds at 88.6% with zero false positives, and the verdict
hash is unchanged: none of these carve-outs touches a case the corpus tests.