% Owner: Agent 10 (Stage E writing). Every generated exhibit is \input exactly once in the prose at the anchor
% where it is discussed; please do not add a second \input of the same float (duplicate labels). — 2026-11-05
% ============================================================================
\section{Introduction}
% ============================================================================

A large share of what firms do strategically---build plants, open data centers, integrate acquisitions, launch products, move systems to the cloud, commit to decarbonization targets---is described, often repeatedly and over several years, in the narrative sections of their regulatory filings. The standard quantitative record of corporate investment is nevertheless an aggregate: capital expenditure, R\&D expense, acquisition spending, or counts of patents and plants. Researchers who want to observe the \emph{unit of decision}---a specific, identifiable initiative with a start, a scope, a budget and a fate---have relied on hand-collected samples of announcements, such as the ``Million Dollar Plants'' location decisions of \citet{greenstone2010} or the capital-expenditure announcements studied by \citet{mcconnell1985}, or have inferred activity indirectly from firm-level text scores \citep{hoberg2016,hassan2019}. This paper documents an attempt to build that unit systematically, from primary sources, for a broad cross-section of U.S.-listed companies, and reports what a set of mechanical audits says about the result.

The object we describe is SPID (\emph{SEC Project Intelligence Database}), developed at the Université du Québec en Outaouais on top of the UQO EDGAR research corpus. Its first release, in June 2026, covered the 500 constituents of the S\&P~500 \citep{spid2026}. The present paper documents its extension, carried out on October~27--28, 2026, to an issuer universe that approximates the Russell~3000 through the holdings of an index-tracking fund: \SPIDuniverseN\ distinct SEC registrants, of which \SPIDrussellDistinctCiks\ come from the iShares IWV holdings file and cover \SPIDrussellProxyCoveragePct\% of the \SPIDrussellIndexConstituents\ constituents listed in the index factsheet of \SPIDfactsheetDate\ \citep{ftserussell3000factsheet2026,iwvholdings2026}; \SPIDfilingsTotal\ annual, quarterly and current reports filed between January 2010 and October 2026; \SPIDledgerTotal\ filing sections written to an extraction ledger, of which \SPIDgatePassTotal\ passed a lexical gate and were submitted to a large-language-model (LLM) extractor in JSON-object mode; and \SPIDmentions\ stored project mentions, each linked to its SEC accession number and section identifier, resolved into \SPIDprojectCountCurrentKey\ candidate projects under the current resolution key. The extraction was performed in two runs---June 2026 for the S\&P~500 block and October 2026 for the rest---under one prompt lineage whose text is unchanged by file-system evidence but for which no June code revision exists (\Cref{sec:architecture}, \Cref{app:runs}).

Our research question is methodological: can we reliably identify, classify, date, link and quantify distinct strategic projects disclosed by Russell~3000 companies, while preserving source evidence and without claiming exhaustive coverage of real-world activity? The answer is two-sided and, in this revision, quantified wherever a quantity could be computed without new model calls. On the positive side, the pipeline is re-runnable and ledgered: every submitted section is recorded with its mention count and timestamp, every intermediate artefact is archived with a checksum, and every table, figure and inline number of this paper is regenerated from the exported data by two scripts. A field-level grounding audit over all \SPIDmentions\ mentions finds the extracted years, partners and amounts verbatim in the source section in \SPIDgroundYearsPct\%, \SPIDgroundPartnersPct\% and \SPIDgroundAmountNumberPct\% of cases, and every structured field of a mention in \SPIDgroundAllPct\% of cases (\Cref{sec:validation}). On the cautious side, three results of the same audits bound what the counts mean. First, the focus windows that cap the cost of each call showed the model a median \SPIDmdnaShownMedianPct\% of a submitted 10-K MD\&A, and \SPIDmentionsFromLtTwentyFivePct\% of all mentions come from sections of which less than a quarter was shown; recall on long sections is therefore bounded by construction, not merely unknown. Second, the project count depends on the resolution key: it ranges from \SPIDprojectsKeyTypeDropped\ to \SPIDprojectsKeyStrict\ across the alternative keys of \Cref{sec:resolution}, and \SPIDprojectsKeyedNameTokenPct\% of projects under the current key are grouped on a generic first token of the model's project name. Third, \SPIDfinMentionsPct\% of mentions describe share repurchases, credit facilities, note offerings or similar financing instruments that are not projects in the sense of the construct. The components that a validated measurement instrument requires---precision, recall and category accuracy against independent human labels, and an audit of cross-filing linkage---remain unexecuted: the sampling frame, weights and protocol are delivered with this paper, the labels are not. We therefore continue to describe SPID as a \emph{research database under validation}, and we keep a register that separates implemented, measured, documented-but-unverified and proposed claims (\Cref{app:evidence}).

The paper makes four contributions. First, it specifies the measurement target: a \emph{project} is a distinct, identifiable, issuer-associated strategic initiative described in one or more disclosures, as opposed to a \emph{project mention} (a particular sourced statement), a \emph{generic strategy} (``we invest in innovation''), a historical or third-party reference, a financing instrument, or an uncertain candidate (\Cref{sec:construct}). Second, it documents an architecture that reads the three main periodic forms for a universe of this size: a frozen issuer universe reconciled against SEC identifiers, an acquisition layer that shares one aggregate rate budget across ten cluster nodes and one external gateway, a parser that keeps section-level provenance, and an extraction ledger that makes the paid inference step resumable (\Cref{sec:architecture}). Third, it exposes the extraction contract and the resolution rule in enough detail to be audited and, in this revision, audits them: the prompt, the JSON output and its deterministic normalisation, the confidence semantics, the project key, and the ways in which that key both splits and merges real initiatives (\Cref{sec:resolution,sec:validation}). Fourth, it lays out a validation protocol with acceptance gates and reports, gate by gate, what the current build satisfies, what the Stage D audits have measured, and what remains an author task (\Cref{sec:validation}). Relative to firm-level text scores \citep{hoberg2016,hassan2019,sautner2023,jha2024} and to event-level extraction from 8-Ks \citep{crane2024,dolphin2026}, SPID's unit is the initiative itself, followed across 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filings; unlike those studies it does not yet report accuracy against human labels, which \Cref{sec:validation} specifies.

Three caveats frame everything that follows. A present-day holdings file of an index-tracking fund that uses representative sampling is a proxy for index membership, not an authoritative historical constituent list; the universe is a snapshot, and survivorship is built into it (\Cref{sec:sample}). A disclosed project is evidence that an issuer \emph{described} an initiative, not evidence that the initiative happened, and a disclosed budget is a statement about intentions or estimates, not realized capital expenditure. Finally, the extractor only sees what the parser and the focus windows give it: sections that were truncated, filings that failed to download or parse, exhibits outside the selected forms, and 10-K items outside the five submitted ones are invisible, and ``zero projects'' for an issuer-year must never be read as ``no projects''.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. \Cref{sec:literature} positions the work relative to text-based measures of corporate activity, LLM-based measurement and extraction, open EDGAR corpora and record linkage. \Cref{sec:sample} defines the universe and reports its reconciliation and its coverage of the index. \Cref{sec:architecture} describes acquisition, parsing, the distributed build and the two extraction runs. \Cref{sec:construct} defines the project construct, the gate and focus windows, and the extraction contract as implemented. \Cref{sec:resolution} covers mention-to-project resolution, the sensitivity of the project count to the key, timelines and amounts. \Cref{sec:results} reports descriptive patterns. \Cref{sec:validation} presents the audits executed in this revision, the annotation protocol, and the acceptance gates. \Cref{sec:applications} discusses research applications and identification limits, and \Cref{sec:conclusion} lists the limitations, the reproducibility statement and the conclusion. The appendices provide the taxonomy, the prompt and gate, the data-model audit, the evidence register, the inter-revision code diff, additional tables and replication instructions.