# Prompt 3c — Record the researcher's revisions to the typologies

## Context
The Step 3a memo proposed eight sector categories and seven event types for the NK enterprises corpus. I have reviewed them against the research question (sectoral attention and reported leadership attention since 2012) and against what a two-hour workshop can sustain. I am collapsing both typologies. These are my decisions as the researcher; your task is to apply them consistently, not to argue them.

## Decisions
1. **sector → four industrial sectors.** `heavy_industry` (metal, machine-building, chemical, building materials, munitions), `light_industry` (consumer goods, food, local industry), `energy` (power stations and grid), `mining` (coal, ore, salt). The v1 code `energy_mining` must be split by the enterprise's name (발전소 → energy; 탄광/광산 → mining).
2. **Non-industrial enterprises are out of scope.** Farms, fisheries, transport, construction firms, utilities and services are coded `relevance = 0` with the reason in `notes`. There is no `other` sector.
3. **event_type → four codes.** `leadership_visit`; `production` (now including technical innovation); `construction_modernization`; `political_ceremonial` (mobilisation, commendation, anniversaries and the former residual).
4. **leader_visit** (`kim_jong_un` / `premier_cabinet` / `none`) and **province** are accepted as proposed.

## Task
Rewrite `typologies_reviewed.md` so that every category table, boundary case and decision rule reflects these decisions. Where a v1 boundary case no longer arises because two categories merged, delete it; where a new boundary arises (energy vs mining; a farm that also runs a food factory), add a rule. Add a section **Researcher interventions** that lists each change above with a one-sentence rationale, so that the codebook README can carry it and a reader of the dataset knows the categories are the researcher's, not the model's.

## Output
The revised memo and a mapping table from every v1 code to its v2 code (or to `relevance = 0`).