0376a74418
Three claims were stale: it said l12 has no facing on the shelf (facings #46-48 now carry it), that the file uses sku_l01-sku_l11, and that the set is 61 in-catalog / 48 unknown across 11 SKUs. It is 64 / 45 across 12. The #46-48 note it pointed at as an open question is now answered, so the note reference goes with it.
53 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
53 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
# Shelf label files
|
|
|
|
Ground truth for the identity evaluators (`code/eval_identity.py`,
|
|
`code/eval_live.py`) and for the evidence scripts in
|
|
`docs/research/2026-09-28-recognition-architecture/evidence/`.
|
|
|
|
{"image": "add/image6.jpg", "version": 2, "facings": [ ... ]}
|
|
|
|
`image` is the photo the boxes index into. `facings` is one row per detected
|
|
product facing, in that photo's own pixel coordinates.
|
|
|
|
## Row schema
|
|
|
|
| Field | Required | Meaning |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| `index` | yes | Row identity. Stable across label revisions, so a run's per-facing log joins to truth by `index`, never by array position. |
|
|
| `box` | yes | `[x1, y1, x2, y2]` in `image` pixels. |
|
|
| `label` | yes | Canonical SKU id (`sku_l01`), `unknown` for a facing that is not in the catalog, or `exclude` for a facing no lane can be scored on. |
|
|
| `source` | yes | How the label was decided. `v1-confirmed-visual` = the v1 label was checked against the package and kept; `visual-audit-2026-09-28` = the label was re-read from the package in the 2026-09-28 audit. |
|
|
| `v1_label` | yes | The label this row carried in v1. Kept so claims computed on v1 stay reproducible and the 26 corrections stay auditable. |
|
|
| `note` | when `label != v1_label` | Why the label changed. Also on a few unchanged rows that need a remark. |
|
|
| `match` | no | v1 provenance only: the field DECISION.md §3 reads as a match IoU, and as evidence that v1 labels were propagated from tag or box matching rather than read off packages. Values here are 0.0, 0.911, 1.0. No scorer reads it; it is carried through unchanged for traceability. |
|
|
|
|
`label` takes a canonical SKU id, `unknown`, or `exclude`. This file uses
|
|
`sku_l01`-`sku_l12`. `exclude` rows stay in the file so the facing inventory is
|
|
complete; every scorer drops them before computing a rate. The evaluators read
|
|
`index`, `box`, and `label`; the provenance fields are additive.
|
|
|
|
`image6.json` is the corrected v2 set: 111 rows, 109 scored (2 `exclude`), 64
|
|
in-catalog across 12 SKUs, 45 `unknown`. 26 labels changed from v1, and three
|
|
more changed on 2026-09-29: facings #46-48 were `unknown` with the note
|
|
"possibly what stock.csv calls l12", and the l12 reconciliation settled it, so
|
|
they now carry `sku_l12`. It is a copy of
|
|
`docs/research/2026-09-28-recognition-architecture/evidence/image6_v2.json`;
|
|
edit the evidence copy and re-copy, so the two cannot drift.
|
|
|
|
## Schema check
|
|
|
|
DECISION.md §7 sets the rule for every label file:
|
|
|
|
> Every label row carries `source`, `confidence`, and `labeler`. A label file
|
|
> without them fails a schema check.
|
|
|
|
The current file does not meet it. All 111 rows carry `source` and `v1_label`,
|
|
but none carries `confidence` or `labeler`: the file records where each label
|
|
came from and what it replaced, not a per-row certainty or a labeler name.
|
|
Inventing confidence values after the fact would be worse than the gap, so they
|
|
are absent rather than guessed.
|
|
|
|
Tier-2 labels must add both. `confidence` is the labeler's own certainty for
|
|
that row; `labeler` names the person or pass that produced it, because Tier 2 is
|
|
double-labelled and a disagreement has to be traceable to a pass. Tier 1
|
|
(`image6_v2.json`) is dev-only and its numbers never ship, so it stays as it is.
|