What happened
The finite-set case distinguishes selecting a measured winner from certifying the unique true minimizer. In round 2, the guided conclusion reduced the condition to one unspecified competitor gap above 2 epsilon. That loses the requirement that the minimum gap—or every competitor gap—strictly exceed the threshold. The reviewer failed its claim-scope gate. Round 3 restored the minimum/every-competitor condition in the conclusion and made the strict test, uncertified branch and singleton exception explicit in Methods. Both drafts then passed, and the reviewer preferred InkTide because the procedure could be implemented from that section without assembling rules from elsewhere.
What the comparison tells us
The correction preserves logical quantification and makes the decision branches self-contained. English remains 4/4; cross-section logic is 4 baseline versus 5 guided in R3.
The wording that changed the condition
R2 flawed conclusion
A competitor gap strictly greater than that threshold provides sufficient evidence of a unique true minimizer
R3 corrected conclusion
a minimum measured competitor gap strictly greater than 2 epsilon certifies a unique true minimizer
These are short excerpts of user-owned generated study drafts. They are not excerpts from an acquired source paper.
What remains open
The development trajectory is guided-better, baseline-better, guided-better across R1–R3. It supports this repair, not stable general superiority.