trade canvass results
"coarse" (for boiling
judge verdicts (4)
- groundedness 1.00 pass — The claim is directly stated in the passage. The text explicitly specifies that 'coarse' grind is suitable 'for boiling,' making this a fully grounded assertion with direct textual support.
- qualifier_fidelity 0.60 fail — The viewpoint qualifier is unfaithful. The passage explicitly attributes this grinding terminology to 'the results of the trade canvass previously referred to' and frames it as what 'would appear' and 'would be acceptable to the greatest number' - this represents trade consensus/survey results, not the author's own assertion. The viewpoint should be 'trade canvass results' or 'survey respondents', not 'author'. All other qualifiers (stance, sentiment, time, context, quote) are faithful to the passage.
- groundedness 1.00 pass — The claim is directly stated in the passage. The text explicitly identifies 'coarse' grind as being 'for boiling' when describing the terms most suited to convey different grades of grinding according to trade canvass results.
- qualifier_fidelity 0.90 pass — The claim is highly faithful to the passage. The quote is verbatim and the qualifiers are accurate: viewpoint correctly references the trade canvass results rather than an author, stance appropriately uses 'asserts', sentiment is neutral, time qualifiers are correctly null (passage provides no temporal scope), and context is appropriately empty. Minor deduction only for the viewpoint being slightly summarized as 'trade canvass results' rather than the more precise 'results of the trade canvass previously referred to,' though this is a negligible semantic difference that does not materially affect fidelity.