Sensium Studies 9–12 field guide 2026: process, place, method, coaching
Field guide to Sensium Studies 9–12: process forks, place separators, winemaking tags, blindLogic coaching — cite without inventing miss-rates.
Sensium’s Band G research is not only the fifteen confusion cuts in the Study 1 field guide or the six catalog censuses in the Studies 3–8 field guide. After those stacks, we published a third stack: Studies 9–12 — non-separator deduction assets that publish process-glossary forks, regional place cues, place→process winemaking tags, and blindLogic coaching cards. This page is the citation hub for that third stack: what each study owns, how to drill them in order, and how to cite them without inventing Study 2 miss-rates.
Headline: Studies 9–12 are complete as catalog deduction research (new objects, not thin aroma cuts or redundant size censuses). Study 1 remains the confusion-cut stack. Studies 3–8 remain the inventory/cohort stack. Study 2 (topic `137`) remains volume-gated. Do not merge the stacks: a Study 9 MLF↔lees fork is not a Study 1 grape pair, and a Study 12 firstCheck is not a miss-rate.
Companions: Study 1 field guide · Studies 3–8 field guide · Study 9 process forks · Study 12 coaching cards. This page is the index, not a fifth thin census inventing new filters.
What Studies 9–12 are (and are not)
| Studies 9–12 | Studies 3–8 | Study 1 (1a / 1b / 1c / 1d / 1e / 1f / 1g / 1h / 1i / 1j / 1k / 1l / 1m / 1n / 1o) | Study 2 (planned) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Glossary forks, regional cues/tags, dossier coaching lines | Dossier/taxonomy/overlay inventory | catalog confusion pairs separators + graph metrics | Anonymized Train/Blind wrong answers |
| Claim type | Which method / place / coaching moves the catalog encodes | How large / dense / bilingual / tagged the catalog is | Which grape edges teach which stop rule | What candidates miss in aggregate |
| Reproducible? | Yes — follow the method on each spoke page | Yes — per-spoke snapshots | Yes — per-spoke snapshots | When n clears |
| Cite as | “Sensium Study N, catalog snapshot 2026-07-09” | “Sensium Study N …” | “Sensium Study 1x …” | Not yet |
Google’s 2026 non-commodity bar still applies: dated method, dated snapshots, clear “not telemetry” labels.
The four deduction spokes at a glance
| Study | Object | Primary question | Spoke |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Process confusion forks | Which method mistakes does the glossary forbid? | Process confusion pairs |
| 10 | Regional place separators | Which place↔place cues finish the call after the grape? | Regional place separators |
| 11 | Regional winemaking tags | Which method tags sit on each regional cell? | Regional winemaking cohorts |
| 12 | blindLogic coaching cards | What does the dossier tell you to do first? | blindLogic coaching cards |
Headline numbers on the spokes are snapshot-dated (2026-07-09 drafts). Regional expression totals keep growing (Expand waves); Study 10/11 snapshots date when the catalog is edited rather than treating any single blog table as eternal.
Snapshot numbers (export-dated)
| Study | Snapshot |
|---|---|
| 9 | 87 process confusion forks edges across 44 processes (avg ~1.98) |
| 10 | 12,601 place cues across 2,975 expressions / 425 varietals (7-cell; totals grow) |
| 11 | 9,562 `typicalWinemaking` tags across 3,199 expressions / 457 varietals (240 distinct; totals grow) |
| 12 | 3,068 firstChecks + 3,068 confidenceSignals + 6,216 warningFlags on 1,534 dossiers |
Three layers of the deduction stack
Layer G — Method literacy (9)
Start here when the glass smells like winemaking, not grape.
- Study 9 — cream/texture (MLF · lees · oak), sparkling methods, maceration/fruit-lift, sweet/oxidative/flor forks from the glossary.
Use Layer G before inventing “oak” for butter or “Pinot” for banana-candy.
Layer H — Place finish (10–11)
Start here when the grape is known and the call still needs a village or a method card.
- Study 10 — commune twins (Pauillac/Saint-Estèphe, Barolo/Barbaresco, Chablis/Meursault) and Old/New World teaching forks.
- Study 11 — place→process tags (Chablis steel/lees vs Meursault barrel/MLF/oak; Pinot whole-cluster cards; Barolo long élevage).
Stack 10+11 on the same cell: read one separator cue, then read `typicalWinemaking`. Sensory fork + method expectation.
Layer I — Dossier script (12)
- Study 12 — firstChecks (structure-first), confidenceSignals (short confirmers), warningFlags (identity / structure / aroma stops).
Use Layer I at the start of a blind (before naming) and again when identity traps appear (Syrah=Shiraz, Tempranillo=Tinta Roriz, Riesling≠Graševina).
Deduction order (recommended)
| Step | Study | Move |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 12 | Read one firstCheck before naming |
| 1 | 1 (if needed) | Grape↔grape separator when twins compete |
| 2 | 9 | Process fork if the nose is method-led |
| 3 | 10 | Place cue once the grape lands |
| 4 | 11 | Method tag on that regional cell |
| 5 | 12 | Warning flags (identity + structure stops) before locking |
Inventory context (Studies 3–8) still sits beside this order — moat numbers and structure/climate cohorts constrain fantasy; they do not replace deduction moves.
How to cite Studies 9–12 (classroom / press / AI)
- Name the study: “Sensium Study 10 (regional place separators), catalog snapshot 2026-07-09.”
- Link the spoke URL (table above).
- Keep the label: catalog deduction research — not population miss-rates.
- Point to the dated snapshot on the spoke.
- Do not merge stacks: Study 9 MLF↔lees ≠ Study 1h oak-led grape pair ≠ Study 10 Pauillac↔Stags Leap cue ≠ Study 11 `stainless_steel` tag ≠ Study 12 “Low tannin” warning.
For confusion-pair teaching, prefer the Study 1 field guide. For atlas/vocabulary/trust/cohorts/aliases, prefer the Studies 3–8 field guide. For method/place/coaching deduction, prefer this page’s spokes.
Four-week drill stack (deduction-first)
| Week | Focus | Studies | Habit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Process forks | 9 | MLF vs lees vs oak sheet; traditional vs tank sheet |
| 2 | Place cues | 10 | Médoc communes; Barolo/Barbaresco; Sancerre/Marlborough |
| 3 | Method tags | 11 | Chablis vs Meursault steel/oak; Pinot whole-cluster; Rioja Alta vs Ribera |
| 4 | Coaching cards | 12 | First check + identity warning + structure stop per exam grape |
Service: Glossary · home flights · Blind · Grapes.
A useful exam habit: keep a four-box deduction card — process fork? place cue? method tag? coaching first-check? — beside the Study 1 stop-rule card and the Studies 3–8 census card. Candidates who only memorize grape pairs still invent élevage and village fantasy the catalog already constrains.
Cross-links worth memorizing
| Grape | Study 9 | Study 10 | Study 11 | Study 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chardonnay | MLF ↔ lees ↔ oak cream forks | Chablis vs Meursault / Puligny | Chablis steel/lees vs Meursault barrel/MLF/oak | Texture-first firstCheck; Morillon identity |
| Cabernet Sauvignon | (oak/process as needed) | Pauillac vs Stags Leap / Médoc siblings | extended_maceration + oak + extended_aging | Firm tannin firstCheck; VIVC parent identity |
| Pinot Noir | Carbonic ↔ stems (when relevant) | Vosne vs Gevrey / Willamette | whole_cluster + cold_soak + oak | Pale + light grip firstCheck |
| Syrah | (savory/process as needed) | Côte-Rôtie vs Barossa / Hermitage | whole_cluster + co_fermentation (Côte-Rôtie) | Pepper+blackberry confidence; Syrah=Shiraz identity |
| Sauvignon Blanc | (lees/steel as needed) | Sancerre vs Marlborough / Pouilly-Fumé | stainless_steel + lees (Loire/NZ) vs Pessac barrel | High acid + green-citrus firstCheck |
Open Compare inside one deduction layer, not across random famous names.
Shared methodology (all four spokes)
Unless a spoke says otherwise:
- Source: bundled catalog JSON fields (not live telemetry).
- Export date on drafts: 2026-07-09.
- Catalog dossiers: 1,534 at Study 9/12 exports.
- Regional grid: grows via Expand waves — Study 10/11 snapshots date when the catalog is edited.
- Not claimed: miss-rates, or that deduction lines replace Study 1 pair separators.
What we will publish next (Study 2)
When anonymized Train/Blind wrong-answer volume clears a documented n threshold, Study 2 will publish miss-rates beside Studies 1, 3–8, and 9–12 — not instead of them. Until then:
- Prefer this field guide + the Study 1 and 3–8 guides for citations.
- Prefer publish-ops / GEO distribution over inventing another thin aroma-pair cut or a redundant size census.
- Do not fabricate Study 2 tables.
Frequently asked questions
Is this the same as the Studies 3–8 field guide?
No. Studies 3–8 index inventory and cohorts. This page indexes deduction objects (process forks, place cues, method tags, coaching cards). You usually need both: censuses for moat/context, 9–12 for finish moves.
Is this the same as the Study 1 field guide?
No. Study 1 indexes grape↔grape confusion cuts. Studies 9–12 index method/place/coaching objects that sit beside those cuts.
Which study should I open first in this stack?
For method-smelling glasses: 9. For “I have the grape”: 10 then 11. For “how do I start?”: 12. For pair separators: go to the Study 1 guide.
Can I cite the whole 9–12 stack in one footnote?
Yes — “Sensium Studies 9–12 field guide, 2026-07-09” plus this URL. For a specific claim, cite the spoke that owns that layer.
Why a field guide instead of Study 13?
After 9–12, the honest next research asset is Study 2 when volume clears — or distribution of what already exists. Another inventory page without a new catalog object would be filler. This hub indexes the four new objects without inventing a fifth thin cut.
How do I reproduce any table?
The tables on this page are the snapshot. Follow the method above. Counts move when the catalog is edited; they are not live exam miss-rates.
Bookmark this page beside the Study 1 field guide and the Studies 3–8 field guide, open Study 9 and Study 12 this week, and force one deduction card after every grape call. Process when needed — place — method — coaching stops.