Chapter 4.7 follows chapter 4.6, Application of a profile to a build, and closes part 4, the profile library; part 5, the task library, begins with chapter 5.1, The maintenance tasks and their hidden checks.
The treatment has five related weaknesses. Its artifacts receive limited uptake, remain inert in the product, impose a discovery cost, expose treatment cues through prompts, and vary in scope. The measured records establish the uptake problem. The source reconciliation below connects the other weaknesses to the treatment design and its trackers.
4.7.1 Artifact opening rates of the documentation profiles
The artifact frequency census, a count of offering and opening records described in R6, measures how often an agent opens an artifact offered to its cell. 6. Metrics/doc_artifact_frequency.csv supplies the artifact paths, offering cells, opening cells, and open rates. doc_artifact_reads.csv supplies the read records. doc_artifact_frequency_by_condition.csv preserves the condition-level view. Together, these files measure the share of offering cells that opened each artifact rather than treating availability as use.
The entry-point index has an open rate of 0.0726, based on 9 of 124 offering cells. source: 6. Metrics/doc_artifact_frequency.csv lines 2 to 4
The root readme file, meaning the repository’s main instructions document, has an open rate of 0.057. source: 6. Metrics/doc_artifact_frequency.csv lines 2 to 4
The trace file has an open rate of 0.0403. source: 6. Metrics/doc_artifact_frequency.csv lines 2 to 4
The remaining artifact rates appear in the frequency file and in the condition comparison. The distribution shows that opening is concentrated in a small portion of the offered documentation. The result is measured uptake, rather than an assumption that an available artifact was read.
Figure D-L6-1. The share of cells that opened each documentation artifact
%% figure D-L6-1 flowchart LR subgraph g1[" "] n1_1["6. Metrics/doc_artifact_frequency.csv"] --> n1_2["artifact_path"] n1_2 --> n1_3["cells_offering_it"] n1_3 --> n1_4["cells_that_opened_it"] end subgraph g2[" "] n2_1["open_rate"] --> n2_2["AGENT_CONTEXT.md"] end n1_4 --> n2_1
source: operations/site-ia/A3-diagram-specification.md
source: 6. Metrics/doc_artifact_frequency.csv lines 2 to 4
The share of offering cells that opened each documentation artifact.
4.7.2 Derived document share of the documentation profiles
The page nine ledger result reports that a typical cell opened two percent of the offered documentation, with a range from 1.8 to 9.2 percent and an outlying cell at 44.3 percent. source: page 09 line 169
This result counts the lap_read category alone. It is a provisional derived signal because the category-level reconciliation remains open. It complements the artifact-level rates: the first measure asks which artifacts were opened, while the second measures the share of the offered documentation represented by those reads.
4.7.3 Artifact uptake weakness of the documentation profiles
Low uptake is the first weakness. The treatment offers documentation that an agent may inspect, yet the opening records show that the offer does not ensure use. This limits the treatment’s practical effect in a maintenance task. The artifact rates, the read records, and the run analysis therefore support a problem statement about uptake rather than a claim that the treatment reached every agent.
source: 6. Metrics/doc_artifact_frequency.csv; doc_artifact_reads.csv; doc_artifact_frequency_by_condition.csv; results_analysis.md of run set 007-20260806-instrument-power-shakedown line 38
4.7.4 Documentation inertia weakness of the documentation profiles
Documentation inertia is the second weakness. Documentation can describe code without changing its runtime behaviour or test execution. The L4P deviation shows how the applied profile can depart from the intended profile, while the profile record describes the documentation layer as an addition around the build. The treatment therefore carries explanatory material whose effect depends on an agent choosing to read it.
source: 3. The LAP Profiles.md section 3.1 and its L4P deviation
4.7.5 Discovery cost weakness of the documentation profiles
Discovery cost is the third weakness. An agent must locate a relevant artifact and open it after deciding that it applies. The task-suite tracker records this dependency in the treatment’s checking workflow. A documentation layer can therefore consume attention during discovery before it produces any task value.
source: 6. The Task Suite.md section 6.5 with the tracker
4.7.6 Prompt disclosure weakness of the documentation profiles
Prompt disclosure is the fourth weakness. The treatment context can reveal that documentation exists and can direct attention toward named artifacts. That cue changes the conditions under which uptake is observed, because an agent given a reading route is not in the same information state as an agent that must discover the route. This is a treatment-design problem that accompanies the opening records.
source: page 04 section 8 lines 203 to 219; Appendix B section (c)
4.7.7 Artifact scope weakness of the documentation profiles
Artifact scope is the fifth weakness. The treatment includes artifacts with different purposes and depths, from location aids to manuals. The profile note records this variation in the material placed around the build. An artifact can therefore be present while offering too little task-specific guidance or too much material to search.
source: 3. The LAP Profiles.md section 3.4 note
Figure D-L6-3. A synthesis diagram linking the documentation treatment to five weaknesses: limited artifact uptake, documentation inertia, discovery cost, prompt disclosure, and varied artifact scope.
%% figure D-L6-3 flowchart LR n1["A synthesis diagram linking the documentation treatment to five weaknesses: limited artifact uptake<br/>documentation inertia<br/>discovery cost<br/>prompt disclosure"] n2["varied artifact scope"] n1 --> n2
source: operations/site-ia/A3-diagram-specification.md
source: 3. The LAP Profiles.md sections 3.1 and 3.4, including the L4P deviation
The five weaknesses of the documentation treatment.
4.7.8 Weakness evidence synthesis of the documentation profiles
The five problems describe different failure points in the same treatment. Uptake concerns whether an offered artifact is opened. Inertia concerns the absence of runtime force. Discovery cost concerns the effort required before reading. Prompt disclosure concerns information supplied before discovery. Artifact scope concerns the fit between an artifact and the maintenance task. The frequency files measure opening, while the source records explain why opening alone cannot establish treatment value.
The measured share of opened artifacts is therefore a limit on the treatment’s reach. The result does not show that every unread artifact lacks value. It shows that the treatment’s possible value is filtered by uptake, design, discovery, prompt context, and artifact scope.