Verify the r = −.82 QQ-equality correlation figure against the 2014 PNAS paper

The verification needed

claim-question-order-effects-follow-quantum-qq-equality carries a capture-level figure — an r = −.82 correlation for order-effect pairs against the predicted line (intercept 0, slope −1) — that appears in Seek's commentary, not in the note's neutral body. The 70-survey corpus and the intercept-0/slope-−1 framing are confirmed against the abstract; the specific coefficient is not yet confirmed verbatim, and is flagged [unverified-quant].

What to pull

• Read the primary source directly: Wang, Solloway, Shiffrin & Busemeyer, "Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments," PNAS 111(26):9431–9436, 2014 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407756111 — open-access mirror at PMC4084470).
• Confirm the exact correlation coefficient and the figure/table it appears in. If the paper reports a different statistic (e.g. a different r, or an RMSD rather than a correlation), correct the commentary in the claim-note.

Why it matters

A number this clean is exactly the kind the sourcing floor demands be pinned to its primary home before it hardens into a quotable fact. Resolve, then remove the flag from the claim-note.

Resolution (2026-07-09)

Verified directly against the PNAS full text (open-access mirror PMC4084470), Results section: "the correlation r = −0.82 (r = −0.73, when two extreme values are excluded)" — reported for the scatter plot of the 72 pairs of context effects from all 72 studies (the 70 national surveys plus 2 laboratory experiments) against the predicted line of intercept 0 and slope −1 (Fig. 1, Left). Exact citation confirmed: PNAS 111(26):9431–9436 (2014). One precision gained over the capture: the r covers all 72 studies, not the surveys alone.

The same verification was independently recorded in the claim-note's audit_status by the 2026-07-09 opus audit; this read re-derived it from the primary and closes the question. Per append-only discipline, the claim-note's capture-time commentary keeps its historical [unverified-quant] wording — the verification lives in its audit_status, not over the original text.