Executable

Can I get this ground for a filter or pour-over brewer?

ALS-COFFEE-1.2-GRIND-002

This question is asked as a test and produces a result for a real page.

Assertion

filter_grind_option option_available true

Applicability

applies when
the product is roasted coffee sold by mass and the seller offers any grind choice
signal
product_type or title indicates coffee

Accepted evidence

  • product_options — a purchasable option value naming filter as a grind e.g. Filter
  • variant_availability — the matching variant is listed and marked available

Explicitly insufficient evidence

What does not count, and why. Published because the omission is where a check quietly becomes a claim.

  • "filter coffee" used as a category or serving style
    In much of the world the phrase names a beverage style rather than a grind, so its presence in prose asserts nothing about what is selectable.
  • "suitable for all brew methods" or "one grind, every method"
    The published grind bands for immersion and espresso do not overlap, so a single grind cannot suit every method; this is the most confidently wrong claim in the class and a naive check accepts it because it is maximally inclusive.
  • a brewing-guides navigation block listing pour-over, drip and AeroPress
    Site navigation and topic lists are chrome rather than an assertion about this item, and the engine deliberately excludes raw page text from evidence for exactly this reason.
  • "medium grind" offered as equivalent to filter
    Coarseness words are seller-relative and two published scales disagree about where medium sits, so the word does not resolve to the filter case.

Conflict rules

  • When the page names pour-over in prose but offers only whole bean — then this entry fails; a recommendation is not a purchasable option precedence: product_options > product_description
  • When both Filter and Espresso options exist — then both entries pass independently; they describe different offers on the same product

What a pass licenses

A pass establishes: That an option value naming filter is purchasable on this product at the time of the test.

A pass does NOT establish: That a particular particle size is delivered, that it suits the buyer's brewer, or that the option means a grind rather than a pack or a category.

Discrimination

Measured fail rate: 92.9% (92 of 99 adjudicated)

95% interval: 86.1% – 96.5%, against a 15-85% target band (wilson95 vs target band)

Verdict: Not discriminating — the whole 95% interval lies outside the target band, so almost every store answers the same way. This is evidence for a retirement decision and is not the decision.

Declared bias in the instrument

A 95% interval bounds SAMPLING error and nothing else. These are the known biases in the measuring instrument for this row, declared rather than netted — where two point in opposite directions and neither is quantified, combining them into one signed number would be a guess wearing a direction.

  • deflates fail rate, 0pp
    Measured false-pass rate of this engine on this entry, from the row-by-row audit of the same run (experiments/v3-2/verdicts.json): 0 of this entry's 7 pass rows were confirmed wrong. Correcting them moves rows from pass to fail, so the measured fail rate is BELOW the true one.

Recomputed by `standards/coffee/issue_v1_2.ts` from experiments/v3-2/standard_run3.jsonl through the shipped `verdictFor` in standards/discrimination.ts; no re-run, no network, no spend. Cross-checked against experiments/v3-2/discrimination.json and standards/coffee/v1.0/fitness.json.

Authored expectation: no prediction, confidence low. The numeric band this standard used to carry is not published at this grammar version.

Filter is named less consistently than espresso and competes with pour-over, drip and V60 as option wording, so the fixed string will miss stores that offer the same thing under a different name. The high band reflects vocabulary fragmentation as much as seller behaviour, and that is a weakness of the assertion rather than a finding about merchants.

The numeric fail-rate band this reasoning was authored with is NOT carried at grammar 1.2 and is not reproduced here. Authored bands held 1 of 10 against this category's own sample and every miss was HIGH, so a direction derived from the band would inherit the error that condemned it (SCHEMA.md §9.3 step 3). The band survives in ALS-COFFEE v1.1 (standard_hash f8ec2780f60c38931913e5b6cd37506500c8462709209de7180ba6691d6137e7), which is byte-frozen and still served.

Known gaps

  • no adversarial-corpus coverage exists for variant_option at all — false_pass

For a shopper

If you brew with a cone, a Chemex or a drip machine, this is the grind you need, and the words sellers use for it vary. Look for a selectable option rather than a sentence, and treat any claim that one grind suits every brewer as unreliable.

For a merchant

Name the filter or pour-over grind as a purchasable option value, and avoid offering a single grind described as suitable for all methods, which cannot be true across immersion and espresso.

Grounding