User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Evaluation of Analysis/@comment-30754445-20181120105029/@comment-35470197-20181120111800

> It is important to note that a high level does not guarantee that the analysis is trustworthy, and a low level (unless it's level 1 or a low level 2) doesn't mean that the analysis is useless

Exacly. As I wrote in the beginning, this evaluation does not ensure the accuracy. The point is that analyses of low level is not even wrong, because the existence of unspecified/undefined notions in them prevent us checking whether it is correct or not. On the other hand, you can guess what the analysts wanted to say and use them in order to understand notations or functions.

> Also, I'm not sure why you put our classic analysis (Deedlit and co) of PS on level 2. We were using the extended Madore Psi, which was the bona-fide standard notation that was used in this community at the time.

What extension are you referring to? Bashicu's extension? The extension in wikipedia? Where is the definition? Specifying all functions are needed as long as their is ambiguity of the definition. For example, if googologists here are using UNOCF in the future in their "classical" analysis because they all share a common unwritten "definition" in their mind, could you regard it as a well-defined bona-fide standard notation? I think that you think that the definition should be clearly declared.

To be fair, I decided to list them from the aspect of the reproducibility. It does not matter if it is completely correct and there is no ambiguity only among you,