Two new levers on a sin page. `wild[]` renders credited, linked
specimens between the explanation and the citations — first the
argument, then proof people actually publish this, then the sources.
`related[]` cross-links neighbouring sins and is resolved at build, so a
typo fails the build instead of shipping a dead link.
Both arrive with the first specimen: a Hungarian primary graphic whose
three slices read 38/22/19 — 79% — drawn as a full circle, so every
share is inflated by about 1.27x. Measured off the image, the 38% slice
occupies 173.6 degrees, or 48.3% of the pie.
Our published pie sin is about too many slices, so it didn't cover this;
"Pie Slices That Don't Sum to the Whole" is a new severity-5 page whose
before/after is two pies differing only in whether the remainder is
present. That sin is an omission, so `compareNote` replaces the standard
"same numbers, both charts" line.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULE5RRxdQE1ebwefEd2eCM
The source-request loop paid for itself immediately — two of the five
corrected something rather than confirming it.
The Economist piece settles V1, the riskiest live claim, but our note
had over-claimed: truncating the scale is its *first* example, not one
of "several." Note rewritten to quote her. The same article turned out
to contain a dual-axis chart she caught herself on, now cited.
Datawrapper's color-scale part 1 refuted the assumption behind a queued
sin outright: it makes no argument against rainbow scales and endorses
multi-hue sequential gradients. The rainbow entry is now marked as
having no verified source at all, rather than ample backing.
The dual-axis post independently draws the same line we drew last turn
— of four uses only the alternative-scale case survives, their example
being F against C — and led to two references worth more than the blog
post: the Isenberg et al. study that tested dual-scale charts, and Few's
article working through the cases. Both ship without full metadata
rather than guessed metadata; queued.
Pie and stacked posts gave verbatim support, plus one correction: a
100%-stacked chart has two readable baselines, not one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULE5RRxdQE1ebwefEd2eCM
Datawrapper's blog 403s, Medium is unreachable, JSTOR wants a session,
and a search snippet is a paraphrase rather than a source's words. The
failure mode is guessing, or silently writing a weaker page.
docs/source-requests.md now holds a fetch queue with the specific
question each link needs to answer, plus a register of claims already
live on the site that rest on recall rather than a page anyone opened —
starting with the riskiest, an inference about which mistakes the
Economist piece owns up to. docs/sources/ is the drop zone.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULE5RRxdQE1ebwefEd2eCM
Claude