EDS = 0.25 × Extent
+ 0.25 × Substantiation
+ 0.25 × Target
+ 0.25 × GovernanceExtent combines breadth and calibrated intensity. Substantiation combines quantitative evidence, action, and realized performance.
Frozen methodology
Open each layer of the research system. The scientific method is presented as completed—this frontend neither retrains nor recalculates it.
Method map
The default view stays concise; expand only the areas relevant to your role.
Official FY2024 corporate reports, official Indonesian PROPER facility ratings, issuer–facility linkage evidence, and independently assembled adverse-environmental event evidence.
Report text was segmented into page-linked sentence records while retaining neighboring context and source provenance. Acquisition, period, extraction, and quality gates were registered.
A bilingual transparent rule architecture retrieved environmental sentences. It remained stronger for binary relevance than more complex alternatives in the frozen evaluation.
Primary labels, blind second annotations, and adjudication decisions remained separate. Machine outputs never replaced human labels.
Semantic MiniLM representations improved environmental theme assignment, while performance remained mixed across themes and external companies.
Quantitative evidence, actions, realized performance, targets, governance, and a registered qualitative residual were measured at sentence level.
EDS v1 combines extent, substantiation, targets, and governance with equal 0.25 weights. It is a disclosure measure, not an environmental-performance score.
Environmental intensity was calibrated against a frozen 40-company FY2024 reference using a robust-normal-CDF transformation. Reference sensitivity was retained.
Only verified, period-valid, high-confidence direct, division, subsidiary, or controlled-facility relationships entered the analytical intersection.
The primary standing is the equal-facility mean of official PROPER distribution midranks. Median and worst-facility aggregations are robustness checks.
DPD equals empirical EDS reference standing minus mean PROPER performance standing. No threshold, class, severity level, or reputational ranking was created.
The independent adverse-event criterion was frozen before predictor linkage. Phase 6B strengthened structured searches, facility coverage, human review, and adjudication.
Primary inference used Spearman correlation, 2,000 company-level bootstrap draws, 9,999 two-sided permutations, and leave-one-company-out diagnostics.
Versioned configurations, frozen datasets, SHA-256 manifests, scientific tables, evidence provenance, and regression tests preserve the analytical chain.
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
EDS = 0.25 × Extent
+ 0.25 × Substantiation
+ 0.25 × Target
+ 0.25 × GovernanceExtent combines breadth and calibrated intensity. Substantiation combines quantitative evidence, action, and realized performance.
DPD = Disclosure Standing
− Performance StandingBoth inputs use a common 0–1 standing scale. The browser displays frozen values; it does not recompute company scores.
NLP and AI
Transparent rules remained strongest for environmental relevance, while semantic embeddings supported themes and disclosure attributes with documented limitations.
Disclosure attributes
MiniLM; external holdout F1 0.7447
Semantic classifier with deduplication
Attribute-specific error remains
Refined transparent rule
Hierarchical environmental governance
Registered residual, not a fitted class
Human annotation
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
Initial independent adverse-event criterion.
95% CI [-0.3458, 0.2823]
The strengthened evidence process did not create a meaningful association. DPD therefore remains descriptive rather than predictive.
Limitations
These are analytical constraints, not fine print.
Wide uncertainty and low power for modest associations
Cannot establish temporal stability or directionality
Disclosure and PROPER/event windows may not represent the same process
Mapped PROPER facilities may not represent the whole issuer
Mean standing can hide worst-facility variation
Report availability and mapping eligibility restrict generalizability
Disclosure sources differ in accessibility and report type
EDS standing depends on a modest FY2024 reference
Errors propagate from sentence attributes into EDS
Observed events depend on source discoverability
Human-vs-frozen agreement is not human-human reliability
Only 7/36 issuers had primary Phase 6B events
DPD cannot validate traditional intentional-deception concepts