fix(trust): soften established_bad_actor for high-volume sellers; add declining_ratio flag
Some checks failed
CI / Python tests (push) Has been cancelled
CI / Frontend typecheck + tests (push) Has been cancelled
Mirror / mirror (push) Has been cancelled
Release / release (push) Has been cancelled

Fixes a false-positive edge case (snipe#52) where sellers with 500+
lifetime feedback were hard-flagged as established_bad_actor when the
12-month ratio dipped below 80% — even though the 12-month window may
cover only a small recent sample relative to lifetime history.

Changes:
- established_bad_actor hard filter now only fires for accounts with
  20–500 lifetime feedback (unchanged behavior for moderate accounts)
- Accounts >500 feedback with ratio 60–80%: new declining_ratio soft flag
  (composite score penalised but not zeroed, no hard block)
- Accounts >500 feedback with ratio <60%: still established_bad_actor
  (catastrophically bad even for high-volume sellers)
- Two new constants: HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_MAX_COUNT=500,
  HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_HIGH_THRESHOLD=0.60

Note: buyer-feedback-only accounts (lifetime buyer history inflating
feedback_count for new sellers) requires profile-page scraping to detect
properly — tracked in snipe#52 as medium-term work.

Tests: 22 passed
This commit is contained in:
pyr0ball 2026-04-27 12:54:51 -07:00
parent 0354234f86
commit 05f845962f
2 changed files with 61 additions and 5 deletions

View file

@ -11,6 +11,15 @@ HARD_FILTER_AGE_DAYS = 7
HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_MIN_COUNT = 20
HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_THRESHOLD = 0.80
# Above this lifetime count the 12-month ratio may cover only a tiny recent sample,
# making a hard bad-actor flag disproportionate. Instead we emit the softer
# "declining_ratio" flag and let the composite score carry the penalty.
# Note: buyer-feedback-only accounts (e.g. longtime buyers who start selling) are a
# related edge case that requires profile-page scraping to detect properly — tracked
# in snipe#52 as a medium-term fix.
HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_MAX_COUNT = 500
HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_HIGH_THRESHOLD = 0.60 # catastrophically bad even for high-volume
# Sellers above this feedback count are treated as established retailers.
# Stock photo reuse (duplicate_photo) is suppressed for them — large retailers
# legitimately share manufacturer images across many listings.
@ -117,11 +126,18 @@ class Aggregator:
# Hard filters
if seller and seller.account_age_days is not None and seller.account_age_days < HARD_FILTER_AGE_DAYS:
red_flags.append("new_account")
if seller and (
seller.feedback_ratio < HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_THRESHOLD
and seller.feedback_count > HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_MIN_COUNT
):
if seller and seller.feedback_ratio < HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_THRESHOLD:
if HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_MIN_COUNT < seller.feedback_count <= HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_MAX_COUNT:
# Moderate-volume account with consistently bad ratio → hard flag.
red_flags.append("established_bad_actor")
elif seller.feedback_count > HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_MAX_COUNT:
if seller.feedback_ratio < HARD_FILTER_BAD_RATIO_HIGH_THRESHOLD:
# High-volume seller with catastrophic ratio → still hard flag.
red_flags.append("established_bad_actor")
else:
# High-volume seller with declining but not catastrophic ratio.
# 12-month window may cover only a small recent sample — soft flag only.
red_flags.append("declining_ratio")
if seller and seller.feedback_count == 0:
red_flags.append("zero_feedback")
# Zero feedback is a deliberate signal, not missing data — cap composite score

View file

@ -232,6 +232,46 @@ def test_significant_price_drop_not_flagged_when_no_prior_price():
assert "significant_price_drop" not in result.red_flags_json
# ── declining_ratio (high-volume seller edge case, snipe#52) ─────────────────
def test_declining_ratio_soft_flag_for_high_volume_seller():
"""High-volume seller (count > 500) with declining but not catastrophic ratio
gets declining_ratio soft flag, NOT the hard established_bad_actor flag.
Edge case: 12-month ratio may reflect only a small recent sample for sellers
with large lifetime feedback counts hard-flagging is disproportionate.
"""
agg = Aggregator()
scores = {k: 10 for k in ["account_age", "feedback_count",
"feedback_ratio", "price_vs_market", "category_history"]}
high_vol = Seller(
platform="ebay", platform_seller_id="u", username="u",
account_age_days=2000, feedback_count=800, # count > 500
feedback_ratio=0.75, # < 0.80 but > 0.60
category_history_json="{}",
)
result = agg.aggregate(scores, photo_hash_duplicate=False, seller=high_vol)
assert "declining_ratio" in result.red_flags_json
assert "established_bad_actor" not in result.red_flags_json
def test_established_bad_actor_still_fires_for_catastrophic_high_volume_ratio():
"""High-volume seller (count > 500) with catastrophically bad ratio (< 60%)
still gets the hard established_bad_actor flag not just declining_ratio."""
agg = Aggregator()
scores = {k: 10 for k in ["account_age", "feedback_count",
"feedback_ratio", "price_vs_market", "category_history"]}
bad_high_vol = Seller(
platform="ebay", platform_seller_id="u", username="u",
account_age_days=2000, feedback_count=800,
feedback_ratio=0.50, # < 0.60 threshold → still hard flag
category_history_json="{}",
)
result = agg.aggregate(scores, photo_hash_duplicate=False, seller=bad_high_vol)
assert "established_bad_actor" in result.red_flags_json
assert "declining_ratio" not in result.red_flags_json
# ── established retailer ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
def test_established_retailer_suppresses_duplicate_photo():