Problem
/fairness publishes precision, coverage, and confidence intervals, but the method behind them (outcome-confirmation via merged/reopened/reverted scanning, window semantics, interval construction) lives in code and scattered issue history. Readers should be able to check the method, not just the number.
Scope
- One docs page: data sources (decision ledger), outcome-confirmation rules, window/decay semantics, how coverage and confidence intervals are derived, and known limitations (e.g., outcomes that cannot be confirmed yet)
- Linked from /fairness and from the verify-this-review walkthrough
- Kept adjacent to the scoring code it describes so drift is reviewable in PRs
Acceptance
A reader can go from any number on /fairness to the exact rule that produced it without reading source code.
Problem
/fairness publishes precision, coverage, and confidence intervals, but the method behind them (outcome-confirmation via merged/reopened/reverted scanning, window semantics, interval construction) lives in code and scattered issue history. Readers should be able to check the method, not just the number.
Scope
Acceptance
A reader can go from any number on /fairness to the exact rule that produced it without reading source code.