The customer is asking for their money back.
· question id refund_requested
· model semif-qwen3.5-4b
| sentence 4 | +0.4553 | Your policy page says damaged items qualify for a full refund. | |
| sentence 1 | -0.1839 | The jacket itself looks fine, honestly. | |
| sentence 5 | -0.1234 | Let me know what my options are. | |
| sentence 0 | -0.0988 | Order A-104 arrived yesterday and the box was crushed on one co… | |
| sentence 2 | -0.0547 | I've been shopping with you since 2019 and never had a problem … | |
| sentence 3 | +0.0261 | I'm not sure whether to send it back or just keep it at a disco… |
0 of 6 segments are enough. On their own they answer 0.9669, against 0.9876 for the whole state.
“”
Nothing found that flips value >= 0.5. The decision is robust to removing evidence.
This question cannot discriminate. An empty state already answers 0.9669, which falls on the same side of value >= 0.5 as the full state. Most of the answer is a prior the input never moves, so a threshold here will fire on almost anything — including nothing at all.
Exact attribution. Every one of the 64 possible combinations of this evidence was evaluated, so these values are not estimates. They sum to the total swing by construction — the +0.0000 residual is floating-point error, not uncertainty.
Interacting and redundant evidence is credited correctly here, which leave-one-out cannot do.