Carry the review notes and Bend's train-overlap flag into the published benchmark

Two label-side gaps left over from #21, which shipped records, native, 4096x2048 and galleries (9 splits each, 11.41 GB) to rampnet-benchmark. Both are fixable with a records-only rebuild (179 KB) plus a card re-push — no imagery moves, and export_benchmark.py adopt (added in #125) makes a partial rebuild safe.

1. The reviewer's notes do not travel with the data

verdicts.json carries a top-level review_notes block (what fought the rubric, how confident the reviewer is in their own pass) and an optional per-pano note. score_validation.py prints review_notes above the numbers on purpose — so a caveat reaches whoever quotes a precision figure. The published parquet rows carry neither, and the card points back at benchmark/ in git instead.

That is exactly backwards for the audience that matters here: someone who does load_dataset(...) and never opens the repo. benchmark/README.md has asked for this since the bundle format was written — "whoever finishes #21 should make the caveats travel with the data".

Budapest is the split this exists for: its ground truth was reviewed at LOW confidence, and nothing on the Hub says so.

2. Bend's four training-overlap panoramas are unflagged

Bend is one of the paper's three training cities. An exact-id check on 2026-07-22 found 4 of its 110 reviewed panoramas in rampnet-dataset's train/val splits:

6WC0hdAYRsSAcluKSs5iRg  9kW9cxpuj7q8DMzf-ClrQQ
DJ8Zp111zu6KnMZz-0PHgQ  VgWpqFkTwCIROvM0z-DkOw

The superseded scripts/build_benchmark_dataset.py kept those rows but flagged them train_overlap = true, so a consumer could score either way. scripts/export_benchmark.py — the exporter that actually published the dataset — has no such column, so the published records config cannot be filtered, and neither the card nor benchmark/README.md mentioned the overlap until now.

Measured 2026-08-18 (score_validation.py on the committed bundle with those 4 panoramas removed):

So this is an honesty/filterability fix, not a numbers fix — every delta is well inside the Wilson intervals (±~5 pt at these counts), and no conclusion in docs/ rests on it. It is still the kind of thing a benchmark must state rather than leave for someone to discover.

Two related gaps worth closing at the same time:

• The overlap check has not been re-run since 2026-07-22, and its id list survives only as a constant in a script nothing calls.
• No other split has been checked. Only the GSV splits can overlap at all (bend, paterson, gainesville, sao_paulo — Mapillary ids are a different id space), and of those only Bend is a training city, so the expected answer is zero. That is a prediction, not a measurement.

Shape of the fix

• build_records() gains train_overlap (bool, from a committed id list rather than a script constant), review_notes (per split) and note (per pano).
• Re-run the check for all four GSV splits and commit the result — including the zeros.
• python scripts/export_benchmark.py adopt → build --benchmark benchmark → verify → push --message ..., then regenerate the card so the records column table documents the new fields.
• scripts/build_benchmark_dataset.py and tests/test_benchmark_dataset.py retire once train_overlap lives in the real exporter.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code (claude-opus-5[1m])

Start with build_records() and the adopt/build/verify flow in scripts/export_benchmark.py, then inspect benchmark/README.md and the existing Hub card generation. Re-run the overlap check for all four GSV splits and ensure records carry the stated fields and notes. Done means the records-only rebuild is verified and pushed, the card documents the fields, and the superseded script and tests are retired.