文档：回归评测与口径账本按评测包（an2/b）的交付校对——贡献期望恒为变化拆解、模式三选一、点名前几段 1–10 缺省 1，判定期望四种分析、差异检验要写模式；参数里不写输入、总数、下钻和阈值，文字参数可带定时变量，只返回两期时可以不写基期本期，口径题和期望反问的题配不了；阈值用开评时拍下的分析设置（算期望、各臂作答同一份，记进指纹）；五种结论逐条写清（引用它的句子写反了算错、做了没说也算错、分析范围不算引用、可比性只能靠引用），评分规则第 3 版、提示词指纹含分析方法；仓库里的虚构库 retail_trends 与八题的分析题集怎么生成、导入。升级说明那一条一并补齐

docs/en/evaluation-and-ledger.md

@@ -16,15 +16,18 @@ Each question in a test suite is a question plus an expected answer. The expecta
 - A metric of a published caliber.
 - A query identified from an Ask Data run.
 - "No data", or a clarifying question back.
-- The main source of a change (contribution): an expected SQL statement plus change decomposition parameters; the main source (one segment or the top few) and the direction are computed with the same analyses the answer uses.
-- A verdict: an expected SQL statement plus parameters for a fluctuation baseline, trend test, difference test, or comparability check; the class of verdict is computed with the same analyses: usual fluctuation or unusual; rising, falling, or no clear trend; a difference that holds up or not enough to conclude; comparable or not comparable (see [Analysis](analysis.md#the-five-analyses)).
+- The main source of a change (contribution): an expected SQL statement plus the parameters of one change decomposition. The mode is additive, ratio, or factor, the parameter names are the same as the analysis tools', and you also set how many top segments to name (1–10, default 1); the expectation is the computed main source and direction.
+- A verdict: an expected SQL statement plus parameters for a fluctuation baseline, a trend test, a difference test (with its mode), or a comparability check; the expectation is the computed class of verdict: usual fluctuation or outside it; rising, falling, or no clear trend; a difference that holds up or not enough to conclude; comparable or not comparable (see [The five analyses](analysis.md#the-five-analyses)).
 
 Rules:
 
-- Numeric values may not be typed in by hand; nor may the segments, directions, and verdicts in contribution and verdict expectations, which are computed from the expected SQL with the same analyses, once before and once after the answer.
+- Numeric values may not be typed in by hand. Nor may the segments, directions, and verdicts in contribution and verdict expectations: they are computed on the snapshot of the expected SQL with the same analyses the answer uses, once before and once after the answer.
+- The parameters of contribution and verdict expectations include no input (the input is the expected SQL's result), no totals, no drill-down, and no thresholds; text parameters may use the schedule variables `{{ schedule.* }}`. When the expected SQL returns only two periods, the base and current periods can be left out: the earlier one is the base. Caliber questions and questions that expect a clarifying question back can't have these two kinds.
+- Thresholds come from the analysis settings snapshotted when the evaluation starts: computing expectations and every arm's answers use the same snapshot, which is recorded in the evaluation's fingerprint ("analysis settings"). An expectation that can't be computed (not enough history, an incomplete current period, and so on) makes that item ungradable, with the reason stated.
 - Text key points are judged by the judge, listed separately, and not counted toward accuracy.
 - After a caliber version bump, questions that use it show a notice at the top. Each question takes one of three options: switch to pinning the new version, compute one expectation for each of the old and new versions, or archive the old question and create a new one. Until then, the question is skipped in evaluations.
 - Test suites can be imported and exported.
+- The repository includes a fictional retail database and a test suite for analytical questions: in the `backend` directory, run `python -m tests.fixtures.acceptance.retail_trends <database file> [--today YYYY-MM-DD]` to generate 26 weeks of orders up to yesterday (with a fixed random seed), register it as a read-only data source named `retail_trends`, then import `tests/fixtures/eval/analysis_suite.json` (eight questions, one for each planted effect).
 
 ### Run an evaluation
 
@@ -44,9 +47,16 @@ Rules:
 - **Comparison**: against the previous evaluation or a baseline, with per-question transitions and attribution.
 - **A/B paired table**: exact McNemar test; display only, not a gate.
 
-Contribution and verdict expectations are scored like this: an answer that cites an analysis conclusion whose verdict matches is correct and traceable; body text that states it correctly by the lexicon without citing it is correct but uncited; a source or verdict that doesn't match, or the opposite answer, is wrong; an expectation that itself can't be computed (the expected SQL returns too little history, say) can't be scored. The input queries of analysis conclusions also count as queries the answer cited.
+Contribution and verdict expectations are scored like this:
 
-Evaluation runs are left out of usage statistics. The scoring rules are at version 3 (which adds contribution and verdict expectations); old evaluations can be re-scored under the new rules from the evaluation details (reading only the sealed records, without calling models).
+- **Correct and traceable**: the answer cites an analysis conclusion whose verdict matches (the same analysis; for a main source, it names the expected segments with the same direction). If the sentence citing it says the opposite, it is wrong.
+- **Correct but uncited**: no matching conclusion is cited, but the body states it correctly by the lexicon (the same judgment words and binding rules; see [Analysis claim check](analysis.md#analysis-claim-check)). Comparability has no judgment words, so only a citation counts.
+- **Wrong**: the cited conclusion's verdict doesn't match, the body says the opposite (calling a usual fluctuation unusual, rising falling, or naming another segment as the main source), the analysis was done but not stated, or it wasn't done at all.
+- **Ungradable**: the expectation can't be computed.
+
+The system-written Analysis Scope doesn't count as a citation by the answer. When an answer cites analysis conclusions, the per-question E1 compares their input queries.
+
+Evaluation runs are left out of usage statistics. The scoring rules are at version 3 (which adds contribution and verdict expectations); old evaluations can be re-scored under the new rules from the evaluation details (reading only the sealed records, without calling models). Copilot's prompt fingerprint includes the analysis method and the writer's analysis rules, so a comparison with the previous evaluation flags "Prompt changed" when they change.
 
 ### Scheduled evaluations