TRUE ENCODER
EXHIBIT 10
A FAILED ATTRIBUTION EXPERIMENT
Can you name the encoder from one symbol?
Some implementations leave measurable traces. Try a held-out sample, then compare your guess with a random-forest classifier trained on disjoint payloads.
CORRECTED MULTI-SEGMENT PARSER / FIVE ENCODERS / CONTROLLED DATA
ATTRIBUTION GAME
Make a guess
The QR's payload is shown after your answer. The game samples are held out from classifier training.
CLASSIFIER PREDICTION
MODEL CONFIDENCE
OVERT PAYLOAD
Choose an encoder.
PER-ENCODER RECALL
One encoder is identifiable. The others are barely separable.
How often each encoder's own held-out symbols were named correctly. The red line is the 20% random baseline.
CONFUSION MATRIX
Interesting is not identification
Rows are true encoders; columns are predictions. A reliable identity signal would concentrate near the diagonal for every encoder.
THE FOUR QUESTIONS
Ask four questions of a symbol with nothing hidden.
WHAT THE SCANNER SEES
WHAT CHANGED UNDERNEATH
WHAT A SECOND READER CAN RECOVER
HOW AN ANALYST CAN NOTICE
FINDING
Better than chance is not strong forensic attribution.
Loading corrected experiment results.
Segno remains the easiest outlier. The other implementations overlap heavily, payload construction influences the features, and even the controlled one-vs-rest profiles have unacceptable false-reject rates. These traces can support investigation; they do not authenticate an issuer.
Read the methods and limitations