I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to resolve the issue using the same principle:

When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font, and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on.

I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us someplace to start discussion.

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)

From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:49 PM
Subject: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis

Latin GP,

As a follow up to our meeting last week, here is the revised document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ontc-amdQ_dFCRCc9oHBvotjwIhYc8xEM1OBn5yk1EI/edit?usp=sharing. However, there are still 9 cases that need to be resolve. These are the cases where there is a mixed of visual scores. Please use the comment boxes to propose a method for resolution, that is consistent with our inclusion principles.

While we solve for the Latin/Cyrillic cases I will start looking at the Greek and Armenian worksheets and apply the same framework to determine inclusion/exclusion of variant candidates.

Best,

Dennis

_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp