Frozen methodology

Technical depth, without a wall of text.

Open each layer of the research system. The scientific method is presented as completed—this frontend neither retrains nor recalculates it.

36 company-years120 facilities40 reference companies271 tests collected

Method map

Fifteen registered layers

The default view stays concise; expand only the areas relevant to your role.

01Data Sources

Official FY2024 corporate reports, official Indonesian PROPER facility ratings, issuer–facility linkage evidence, and independently assembled adverse-environmental event evidence.

02Text Extraction

Report text was segmented into page-linked sentence records while retaining neighboring context and source provenance. Acquisition, period, extraction, and quality gates were registered.

03Environmental NLP

A bilingual transparent rule architecture retrieved environmental sentences. It remained stronger for binary relevance than more complex alternatives in the frozen evaluation.

04Human Annotation

Primary labels, blind second annotations, and adjudication decisions remained separate. Machine outputs never replaced human labels.

05Theme Classification

Semantic MiniLM representations improved environmental theme assignment, while performance remained mixed across themes and external companies.

06Disclosure Attributes

Quantitative evidence, actions, realized performance, targets, governance, and a registered qualitative residual were measured at sentence level.

07EDS Construction

EDS v1 combines extent, substantiation, targets, and governance with equal 0.25 weights. It is a disclosure measure, not an environmental-performance score.

08Reference Calibration

Environmental intensity was calibrated against a frozen 40-company FY2024 reference using a robust-normal-CDF transformation. Reference sensitivity was retained.

09PROPER Mapping

Only verified, period-valid, high-confidence direct, division, subsidiary, or controlled-facility relationships entered the analytical intersection.

10Corporate Performance

The primary standing is the equal-facility mean of official PROPER distribution midranks. Median and worst-facility aggregations are robustness checks.

11DPD

DPD equals empirical EDS reference standing minus mean PROPER performance standing. No threshold, class, severity level, or reputational ranking was created.

12External Validation

The independent adverse-event criterion was frozen before predictor linkage. Phase 6B strengthened structured searches, facility coverage, human review, and adjudication.

13Statistical Methods

Primary inference used Spearman correlation, 2,000 company-level bootstrap draws, 9,999 two-sided permutations, and leave-one-company-out diagnostics.

14Reproducibility

Versioned configurations, frozen datasets, SHA-256 manifests, scientific tables, evidence provenance, and regression tests preserve the analytical chain.

15Limitations

Interpretation is bounded by the N=36 FY2024 cross-section, partial time overlap and facility coverage, reference N=40, selection mechanisms, sparse criterion, and absence of intent ground truth.

Core equations

Readable, deterministic, and frozen

Environmental Disclosure ScoreEDS = 0.25 × Extent
+ 0.25 × Substantiation
+ 0.25 × Target
+ 0.25 × Governance

Extent combines breadth and calibrated intensity. Substantiation combines quantitative evidence, action, and realized performance.

Disclosure–Performance DivergenceDPD = Disclosure Standing
− Performance Standing

Both inputs use a common 0–1 standing scale. The browser displays frozen values; it does not recompute company scores.

NLP and AI

Complexity was tested, not assumed to be better

01Rule-based NLPSelected for environmental relevance
02TF-IDF baselineTransparent lexical comparison
03MiniLM embeddingsImproved semantic theme representation
04Human validationCompany-aware annotated evidence
05External validationFrozen prospective test
0.773Environmental relevance external F1
0.866External balanced accuracy
0.583Theme external micro F1

Transparent rules remained strongest for environmental relevance, while semantic embeddings supported themes and disclosure attributes with documented limitations.

Disclosure attributes

Reliability is reported attribute by attribute

RELIABLE

Quantitative evidence

MiniLM; external holdout F1 0.7447

RELIABLE

Actions

Semantic classifier with deduplication

USABLE WITH LIMITATION

Realized performance

Attribute-specific error remains

USABLE WITH LIMITATION

Targets

Refined transparent rule

USABLE WITH LIMITATION

Governance

Hierarchical environmental governance

DERIVED RESIDUAL

General qualitative

Registered residual, not a fitted class

Human annotation

Independent decisions remained human and traceable

Primary annotationImmutable source decisions
Blind second annotationSeparated reviewer files
AgreementV2 Cohen’s κ = 0.974
AdjudicationOriginal labels retained

Phase 6B external-criterion review used one human reviewer. Its agreement is human-versus-frozen-primary process agreement, not human–human inter-rater reliability.

External criterion result

Criterion validity was not supported

Phase 6Aρ +0.0383

Initial independent adverse-event criterion.

Phase 6Bρ -0.0343

95% CI [-0.3458, 0.2823]

Both estimates remained near zero.

The strengthened evidence process did not create a meaningful association. DPD therefore remains descriptive rather than predictive.

Limitations

The boundary of inference is explicit

These are analytical constraints, not fine print.

LIMIT

Small analytical N=36

Wide uncertainty and low power for modest associations

LIMIT

Cross-sectional FY2024 design

Cannot establish temporal stability or directionality

LIMIT

Partial temporal overlap

Disclosure and PROPER/event windows may not represent the same process

LIMIT

Partial or unknown facility coverage

Mapped PROPER facilities may not represent the whole issuer

LIMIT

Facility-to-corporate aggregation

Mean standing can hide worst-facility variation

LIMIT

Selection bias

Report availability and mapping eligibility restrict generalizability

LIMIT

Standalone report availability

Disclosure sources differ in accessibility and report type

LIMIT

Reference N=40

EDS standing depends on a modest FY2024 reference

LIMIT

Attribute-model limitations

Errors propagate from sentence attributes into EDS

LIMIT

External-event visibility

Observed events depend on source discoverability

LIMIT

One human reviewer

Human-vs-frozen agreement is not human-human reliability

LIMIT

Criterion sparsity

Only 7/36 issuers had primary Phase 6B events

LIMIT

No intent/deception ground truth

DPD cannot validate traditional intentional-deception concepts