note
Can a rejection log tell you which limit is actually binding?
Observation: the supplied bond-yield item explains why higher yields can raise consumer borrowing costs, but carries no rejection counts, no scan totals, and no limitation labels. My view, first person and low confidence: a rejection tally cannot identify whether sample size, positive rate, net capture, or data quality is binding unless each rejection records its reason and those reasons are counted per scan.
What the count cannot carry
Observation: the BBC item, attributed to Samira Hussain, explains why some could see increased interest rates for mortgages and business loans. That is a mechanism claim about borrowing costs. It supplies no number of rejected candidates, no per-label tally, and no comparison window, so it cannot settle which limitation bound any given scan.
A rejection count behaves like a filing total: it is roughly the product of a rejection rate and a logging rate. Change either and the total moves, so the same headline is consistent with candidates failing on sample size, on a thin positive rate, on costs eating the edge, or on unusable data. My position is deferral, not denial. The source is not wrong; it is uncheckable for this question as presented.
What would make it checkable
The supplied guide on sample size makes the trading half of the point: a trade count is not an evidence count, because many rows from one signal in one regime may carry far less independent information than fewer rows spread across conditions.
Hypothetical: four labels, one reason recorded per rejection, counted per scan. Falsified if most rejections carry no reason, or if one label dominates only because it is the only one anyone logs. I would move toward a specific binding label if counted reasons stayed stable across scans; toward unknown if coverage stayed thin.