Grading Detail Code Match
Compare caller-supplied expected and observed records for grading detail code match.
Description
Grading detail-code reconciliation compares declared labels with a caller’s recognized vocabulary.
Grading detail-code reconciliation compares declared labels with a caller’s recognized vocabulary. It checks label coverage rather than the coin’s grade.1
Compare caller-supplied expected and observed records for grading detail code match.
When to use Grading Detail Code Match
Use this tool to compare caller-supplied expected and observed records for grading detail code match.
Prepare documented records or observations for the specific coin or issue context. Enter the required labels, reference table or evidence flags and retain the supporting catalog and examination notes for interpretation.
How to use Grading Detail Code Match and understand its results
- Prepare documented records or observations for the specific coin or issue context. Enter the required labels, reference table or evidence flags and retain the supporting catalog and examination notes for interpretation.
- Enter recognizedCodes, observedCodes using the field table and calculation rules, then run the tool.
- Read coveragePercent, matched, missing, unexpected. The explanation below defines the units, signs, ordering and any flags or placeholder values.
- If the tool reports an input issue, correct the values and run it again. Apply the stated assumptions when interpreting a successfully returned result.
| Input field | Meaning | Value type; see rules below | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| recognizedCodes | Recognized detail codes | list of string | Required |
| observedCodes | Observed label codes | list of string | Required |
Enter expected and observed lists using the field table. Trim, reject blank entries and normalize keys with en-US lowercase. Deduplicate both lists, requiring at least one distinct expected item; observations may be empty. Return matched/missing labels in expected order, unexpected labels in observed order and coverage. Last duplicate spelling is retained at its first key position.
coverage%=100 matchedDistinctExpected/distinctExpected Units, indexing, boundary conditions and exceptional cases are defined in the calculation rules above.
| Output field | Meaning | Value type |
|---|---|---|
| coveragePercent | Coverage (%) | number; minimum: 0; maximum: 100 |
| matched | Matched items | list of string |
| missing | Missing items | list of string |
| unexpected | Unexpected items | list of string |
{
"input": {
"recognizedCodes": [
"cleaned",
"engraved",
"whizzed"
],
"observedCodes": [
"cleaned",
"whizzed",
"scratch"
]
},
"output": {
"coveragePercent": 66.66666666666666,
"matched": [
"cleaned",
"whizzed"
],
"missing": [
"engraved"
],
"unexpected": [
"scratch"
]
}
}Limitations and assumptions
No grading-service vocabulary is embedded or slab authenticated. Recognized but absent codes are simply returned as missing, not as defects expected on a coin. Case and outer whitespace are ignored, while other spelling differences remain distinct.
Numeric inputs must be finite. Follow the calculation-specific rules for overflow, underflow and exceptional cases. Lists are limited to 100,000 entries; the rules above may require smaller limits. Missing required fields, extra fields, wrong value types and violations of the calculation rules are input errors.
Alternative or Complementary methods
Use Whizzed Surface Screen: Summarize caller-observed indicators for whizzed surface screen without treating the result as conclusive. For a complementary task, use Tooling Evidence Screen: Summarize caller-observed indicators for tooling evidence screen without treating the result as conclusive.
References
-
Grading Detail Code Match — tool.io
Similar or alternative tools
- Whizzed Surface Screen
Summarize caller-observed indicators for whizzed surface screen without treating the result as conclusive.
- Tooling Evidence Screen
Summarize caller-observed indicators for tooling evidence screen without treating the result as conclusive.