Extract Friendship PCS text; confirm rubric and two extraction hazards

52pp, clean text layer, no OCR needed. Rubric matches #22's record and is
nested three deep, with sub-items that are weighted under two parents and
unweighted guidance under two others.

Schedule C (the price sheet) contains only 'Separate attachment to be
completed in Excel' — a ready-made labelled known-miss where pricing is 40%
of the available score.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

corpus/friendship-pcs/NOTES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Friendship PCS — extraction notes
+
+Text extracted with pdfjs 4.10.38 (line-grouped by y-position). 52pp, 105,154
+chars, **no page needed OCR** — the text layer is clean throughout.
+
+Raw output in `extracted/`. This is a reading aid for authoring, *not* the
+production pipeline's output — that runs through Document AI and is what gets
+measured later.
+
+## The rubric is real and nested three deep
+
+Verbatim from Section K.2, "Technical Rating Scale":
+
+```
+Pricing                                          40
+  Total Bid Cost (Base Year)                     (no separate points)
+Method of Approach and Implementation            30
+  Food and Packaging                             15
+  Utilization of USDA Foods                      10
+  Geographic preference                           5
+Bidder's Experience, Expertise & Reliability     20
+  Knowledge of USDA / District requirements       5
+  Dependability                                   5
+  Inspection of warehouse and facilities          5
+  Customer Service                                5
+Proven Organizational Capacity                    5
+  (three sub-bullets, NO points)
+Community Connection, Values Alignment            5
+  (three sub-bullets, NO points)
+```
+
+Matches what #22 recorded. Two structural facts it did not capture:
+
+**Sub-items are inconsistent.** Under Method of Approach and Experience they are
+*weighted sub-criteria* summing to the parent. Under Organizational Capacity and
+Community Connection they are *unweighted guidance*. The same visual nesting
+means two different things in one document.
+
+**Geographic preference embeds a mandatory submission inside a scored
+criterion:** "Bidder must submit certification of percentage of locally grown or
+raised foods." A scored criterion carrying a pass/fail artifact.
+
+## Extraction hazards confirmed here
+
+**The rubric never uses the word "criteria" as a heading.** It lives under
+"SECTION K: Evaluation Factors" → "K.2 Technical Rating Scale", with weights as
+bullet suffixes (`– 40 points`). A keyword search for "evaluation criteria" or
+"scoring" returns nothing. First-pass evidence for why #16's completeness sweep
+cannot rely on headings.
+
+**Schedule C is the price sheet and contains no prices.** Verbatim, the entire
+section body is:
+
+> SCHEDULE C: PRICING SHEET
+> *Separate attachment to be completed in Excel.
+
+This is #22's second extraction hazard in its purest form: a PDF-only extractor
+finds **zero pricing** on a solicitation where pricing is 40% of the score. It is
+also a ready-made **labelled known-miss** for the sweep — the obligation is
+present, its content is not, and no amount of better PDF parsing recovers it.
+
+## Obligation density
+
+149 × "shall", 64 × "must" across 52 pages. An earlier ad-hoc extraction reported
+zero of each; that was the extractor failing, not the document.