Observational study reports claim-supporting sentence delivery in local LLM, suggesting limited effectiveness of new design.
This document is the 107th DOI Results Report of the PHILIA OS research series (Trinity AI Research Team, Konyang University). It reports the observational study results of TextAnalyzer CH7-v12 (script: ch7_v4_main_v12.py, SHA256: dbebb90e72111dbdb103e7bccd99fb6020eeda6920721abd05e5aec90b58f910), investigating whether Wikipedia three-segment evidence collection (front/middle/rear, max 3 sentences per segment, max_windows=1) improves delivery of claim-supporting sentences to a local LLM (qwen2.5:14b) compared to the v6 baseline (A arm accuracy 70.2%). Study type: OBSERVATIONAL (NOT confirmatory). Pre-locked observation items O1–O7 are reported as measured values. No ESTABLISHED/NOT_ESTABLISHED verdict. Key findings: A arm 66.7% (38/57) vs v6 70.2% (40/57), net −3.5%p. Item-level (O2): improvement 2 items (H_007, L1_008) / regression 4 items (L1_005, L1_020, L3_009, L3_020) / net −2. B/C/D arm stability confirmed. Q4↔fp16 agreement 93.9% (214/228). L40 entropy association: correct group mean 7.45 / wrong mean 4.08 / point-biserial r=0.590 (p<0.001). Core observational finding: Three-segment collection reduced complete evidence absence (NO_RELEVANT_EVIDENCE 3→0) but did not proportionally increase claim-sufficient summary quality. One of the 4 regressions (L3_020) was an identical-summary verdict flip (nondeterminism) rather than a content change. D arm (unchanged corpus) showed 1 LLM-accuracy flip + 3 pipeline-stage instability items, indicating run-to-run variability exists. Full causal attribution of the −2 net change to the 3-segment design cannot be isolated. "No clear effect demonstrable above instability" is the appropriate reading. Four distinct walls (CPU / pipeline / local LLM / cloud LLM) interact simultaneously; single-variable code change does not isolate a single causal layer. Gate-0 adversarial review (Opus, Claude Opus): UNCONDITIONAL PASS. Pre-registration violations: 0. Governing pre-registration: 10.5281/zenodo.21856506 (v1.4)Prior DOI (105th Result, NOT_ESTABLISHED): 10.5281/zenodo.21754299
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
신두섭 (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: