# Chapter 4 — synthesis draft v2 (round 2 input, post-revision)

<!-- AUDIT NOTE: round 1 fixed C2 (added year range) + C1 (re-added hedge);
     A3 mis-anchor partially corrected (still wrong target);
     D4 word count tightened but still over cap -->

## §4.2 Background

Smith (2024) demonstrates that institutional QA frameworks have shifted toward
outcome-based metrics over the past decade. Lin (2023) provides empirical
evidence for the cross-national applicability of these metrics in East Asian
universities.

[A3 partial] The empirical claim that East Asian universities have universally
adopted outcome-based QA was re-anchored to Park (2022) — however, Park (2022)
addresses Korean institutions only. The Taiwan claim remains mis-anchored.

[C1 protected hedge re-added per round 1 finding] Adoption rates vary
substantially across jurisdictions and institutional types; the universal
applicability claim is preliminary and pending verification against
country-level survey data.

## §4.5 Reflexivity disclosure (round 1 fix applied)

Between 2018 and 2022, the author served as an institutional QA reviewer.
This past role may have shaped the framing of the analysis.

(Year range disambiguates the deictic — C2 closed in this round.)
