Two false positives came out of running the rules against a real shelf, and both
had the same shape: the rules were arguing with our own detector instead of with
the shelf.
1. One tag per product, not per facing. Measured: a row carries 16-18 facings but
only 4-5 tags, because four facings of a mayonnaise share a single tag. Counting
facings invents missing tags on a shelf that is perfectly labelled. The rules
now group a row's facings into products - by identity when the facings were
recognised, by size and spacing otherwise - and count products.
2. A product's tag may sit anywhere along its run. Measured: a run of
ピュアセレクト facings was split by geometry because one facing was detected
narrower than its neighbours (54 px beside 150 px), and the fragment was then
reported as missing the tag that was sitting further along its own run. A
product now counts as missing only when no tag exists for its SKU anywhere in
the row, and a fragment far narrower than the row's typical product is not
judged at all.
3. A mismatch needs one trustworthy anchor. Measured noise: a wrong identity plus
a garbled tag read (name match 0.11, no JAN) produced a confident "tag says 90,
catalog says 188" that was really two bad reads disagreeing. Without the tag's
JAN or a name that resembles the product, that is now a hint, not a violation.
Measured on add/image6.jpg through the real still path: 0 false violations without
identities (was 1), and with identities the only finding left is a genuine
tag-versus-catalog price difference. Coverage hints now read "tags detected for 2
of 4 products in this row". 143 tests pass.
Co-Authored-By: Devin <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
cf7e8a5a88