← back to Harlequin Sample Price Analysis

MODEL-COMPARISON.md

55 lines

# TK-10870 — Claude Harlequin analysis vs independent Codex validation

**model=codex** · 2026-08-30 · read-only mirror validation and local draft tooling only

## Verdict

Claude's 2026-08-26 enumeration and sample remediation were correct for the state and scope
observed then: 513 active Harlequin products, 32 products with a sellable roll but no Sample,
and 481 sample-only products. Its refusal to fabricate a landed cost was also correct.

The price conclusion is now stale because TK-10877 subsequently populated
`harlequin_catalog.price_trade` and formula-derived `price_retail`. Codex independently
reproduced the current state:

| Check | Claude (2026-08-26) | Codex validation (2026-08-30) | Comparison |
| --- | ---: | ---: | --- |
| Original missing-Sample cohort | 32 | 32/32 product-ID matches to DWHQ-335xxx; all ACTIVE | agree |
| `harlequin_catalog` rows | 842 | 842 | agree |
| populated `price_trade` | 0 at observation time | 732 | changed after Claude pass |
| priced rows matching `trade/0.65/0.85` | unavailable | 732/732 | new evidence |
| original 32 with populated trade candidate | 0 at observation time | 31 | changed after Claude pass |
| original 32 with price gap | 32 at observation time | 1 | narrowed |
| original 32 with null catalog `dw_sku` | not reported | 5 (4 have live Shopify SKU; 1 unmapped) | added finding |

## Where Codex agrees with Claude

- The Sample additions were bounded and reversible; Codex did not repeat them.
- Public retail is not proof of DW landed cost. No price should be fabricated.
- Any Shopify price mutation remains customer-facing and gated.

## Where Codex qualifies or disagrees

- “COST=UNKNOWN for all” accurately described the earlier snapshot, not the current mirror.
- A populated `price_trade` makes 31 prices mechanically computable, but it does **not** by
  itself prove confirmed landed cost. `vendor_registry.products_with_cost=0` and the recorded
  zero discount conflict with the populated table and must be reconciled.
- Claude's memo said Harlequin was not governed by MAP. Later TK-10877 evidence records a
  universal US SSP of `2 × TRADE`; the stored DW formula is about `1.810 × TRADE`. Treat SSP
  as a potential sell-price floor until the vendor owner confirms the commercial meaning.
- `harlequin_catalog` uses DWHA staging SKUs, while the live products use DWHQ SKUs. They are
  nevertheless the same original 32 products by Shopify product ID; SKU text alone is not a
  safe join key.
- The Cranes In Flight exception is not safe to target yet. Catalog rows Emerald
  (`DWHA-570137`) and Marine (`DWHA-570138`) share Shopify product ID `7787420680243`, while
  live products DWHQ-335001 and DWHQ-335002 both carry the Marine manufacturer code. The
  `$140` sibling value remains a candidate, but the product-to-colorway identity must be
  repaired before a price draft can name a Shopify target.

## Safe next action

Keep production writes blocked. Reconcile the S1 trade-price provenance, vendor registry
rollups/discount, and SSP rule; then generate a drift-guarded Shopify price draft for the 31
unambiguous products. Keep the Cranes In Flight family excluded until its duplicate product-ID
mapping and manufacturer-SKU stamps are reconciled.