Conciseness

The body is dense and operational, but carries internal changelog residue a fresh reader cannot use: 'defect D5', 'the CFR D5 fix', 'the MKC-Unilever miss, D3', 'FITB/Comerica golden case', 'WS-1/2/3', 'P0 merge gate', and a migration-history section ('a denied or failed stable request does not fall back to retired v3 URLs'). This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — not 2 because the bulk is concrete instruction rather than padded concept explanation.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: copy-paste invocations of `build_sop_plan.py` and `build_entry_signals.py` with all flags, JSON input shapes with examples, explicit numeric thresholds (4.0%/3.0%/1.5% floors, ±0.20pp borderline band, `40% -> 30% -> 30%` splits, +0.5pp alpha), and a concrete verdict-tier vocabulary. Even the manual Step 4b step specifies a source hierarchy and output artifact. Not 4: no real gaps in executability were found.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation gates throughout: the Data Freshness Gate emitting STEP1-RECHECK instead of a hard FAIL, the pessimistic cap forcing HOLD-REVIEW + T1 BLOCKED, pre-order blockers downsizing the first tranche, and a Guardrails section restating the fail-safe rules. Not a destructive/batch skill, so the cap-3 rule does not apply; the only blemish is the nonexistent `scripts/run_all_tests.sh` path, which is minor.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: an overview body with well-signaled, one-level-deep references (all four `references/*.md` files exist) and a Resources section giving each script a one-line role. Not 5: `scripts/run_all_tests.sh` is referenced but absent from the bundle, and threshold/flag detail inlined in the body (profile floors, flag semantics) duplicates what `references/default-thresholds.md` already mirrors (with a floor discrepancy: balanced 3.0% vs 3.0–3.5%). Not 3: references are clearly signaled and the body is not misplacing large blocks of reference-level content wholesale.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'dividend screening', 'dividend growth quality checks', 'PERxPBR adaptation for US sectors', 'pullback limit-order planning', 'one-page stock memo creation' — and closes with comprehensive coverage of the workflow phases ('Covers screening, deep dive, entry planning, and post-purchase monitoring cadence'). Not 4: the action list spans the full workflow end-to-end rather than leaving minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is 'Convert Kanchi-style dividend investing into a repeatable US-stock operating procedure', and 'when' is a concrete 'Use when users ask for…' clause enumerating trigger phrases. Voice is third person. Clearly matches the top anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage including the Japanese source phrase 'かんち式配当投資', 'dividend screening', 'dividend growth quality checks', and 'pullback limit-order planning'. Not 5: common variations users would plausibly say — 'dividend investing', 'dividend stocks', 'yield' — are absent; not 3 because several natural task-level phrases are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Kanchi-style framing and the Japanese term give it a clear niche with distinct triggers. Not 5: the generic trigger 'dividend screening' overlaps with sibling screener skills referenced in the body (value-dividend-screener, dividend-growth-pullback-screener), a minor conflict risk.