<result> <column_name>petal_width</column_name> <family>additive</family> <subtype>intensive_additive</subtype> <confidence>0.6</confidence> <requires_user_confirmation>false</requires_user_confirmation> <sum_meaningful>false</sum_meaningful> <signed>false</signed> <reducers> <primary_reducer>mean</primary_reducer> <valid_reducers>mean, min, max, median, distribution</valid_reducers> <excluded_reducers>sum (adding per-entity petal widths across flowers has no physical meaning), product (not a ratio), geomean (not a ratio)</excluded_reducers> <average_semantics>arithmetic_mean</average_semantics> </reducers> <inner_outer_measure> <inner_measure_reducer>min</inner_measure_reducer> <outer_measure_reducer>max</outer_measure_reducer> </inner_outer_measure> <multiplicative_partner_derivable>false</multiplicative_partner_derivable> <reasoning>The table is STATE with no sequence axis and one row per entity, so multiplicative is highly implausible and no sequential reconstruction is possible. The name and data show no ratio, rate or factor signal. The mean is about 1.2 but the median is 1.3, the range is wide (0.1 to 2.5), and log_symmetry_gain is negative, so the column is not centered on 1.0. The column is a positive physical measurement belonging to each individual flower. Merging entities gives a representative size, so mean is the natural rollup rather than sum. Real_additive is a plausible alternative, since width sits near the "size" naming tokens, which is why confidence is moderate.</reasoning> <table_type_conflict>false</table_type_conflict> </result>