Editing Openai/6935aaed-f35c-8004-8137-e0b2dcf25c84 (section)

==== - Triviality / tautology: Mild. Some repetition and definitional loops, but the core mapping (US/EU/Japan roles) is non-trivial and helpful. ====
* Slop: Present. Especially in: - Uncalibrated “Band” talk, - Soft probability language without stating it’s non-governance-grade.
* Mathematical lipstick: Yes. The F ranges and quasi-metric bands are Potemkin-ish under v17.5: they look quantitative but lack calibration, validation, or audit trail.
* Bridge360 v17.5 classification: This conversation, as-is, must be treated as Band C exploratory narrative, not as a certified governance diagnostic. To upgrade it, we’d need a real F-index design, an indicator dataset, and at least a skeletal SOP 17.1/17.2 pipeline.

If you’d like, next step I can rewrite the key GOS / East Asia Shield conclusions in a “no-lipstick, no-slop” version: pure qualitative, compressed, and explicitly tagged as L2–L3 analytic narrative only.