Two fixes for claims_coverage false negatives (55% → expected ~85%+):
1. Model upgrade: Haiku → Sonnet for semantic matching. Haiku missed
obvious matches (e.g., paragraph about "כריתת עצים" not matching
claim about tree cutting). Sonnet understands context better.
2. Filter: only check appellant/respondent claims, not committee or
permit_applicant claims. Committee claims are defensive positions
("the application complies with the plan") — they don't need to
be "addressed" in the discussion section.
3. Send full discussion text (was truncated to 12K chars).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Chaim
586f1db402