Recipe/Example/ExtraCraquante/Claude discussion
Extra Craquante fit (3336972006014)
The fit is very good overall — 6 out of 7 nutrients within 7%, with one clear actionable finding.
Recipe (per 100g final product)
| Ingredient | % of raw input | Solver | Label |
| Potatoes | 89.3% | 2.84g | 65% |
| Sunflower oil | 10.4% | 0.33g | — |
| Salt | 0.2% | 0.01g | — |
Cooking yield: 3,150% — this is physically wrong and confirms the scale issue we discussed: x is in nutritional units, not grams. The fractions (89/10/0.2) are the meaningful output, not the absolute values.
Nutrient fit
| Nutrient | Observed | Fitted | Error | Assessment |
| fat | 34.0 | 33.9 | 0.3% | ✓ excellent |
| sat_fat | 2.9 | 3.8 | 32% | ✗ LARGE |
| carbs | 45.0 | 45.1 | 0.2% | ✓ excellent |
| sugar | 0.59 | 0.57 | 3.9% | ✓ good |
| fibre | 4.3 | 3.7 | 14% | ~ moderate |
| protein | 5.7 | 5.3 | 6.5% | ✓ good |
| salt_g | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.0% | ✓ perfect |
Discussion
What works well: fat, carbs, sugar, protein and salt are all fitted excellently. The three-ingredient model is a good description of these crisps nutritionally.
The potato fraction discrepancy (89% vs label 65%) is the most important finding. The solver finds potatoes must contribute 89% of the raw input to explain the carbs (45g) and protein (5.7g) in the final product. The label says 65%. Three explanations:
- The label 65% is the cooked weight fraction (after frying, potatoes lose ~70% of their water), not raw input — this would reconcile the difference
- The CIQUAL potato entry underestimates carbs/protein for the specific variety used
- The product contains a potato-derived ingredient (potato starch, potato powder) in addition to fresh potato slices, which concentrates the carbs
sat_fat overestimate (32%) is fully attributable to the oil choice. The solver needs 0.33g of oil to explain 34g fat, but that oil would contribute 3.83g sat_fat at CIQUAL's 11.1% — yet the product only shows 2.90g. The implied sat_fat content of the oil is 2.90 / 0.33 × 100 = 8.8%, which matches high-oleic sunflower oil (8–9%) exactly, not standard sunflower oil (11.1%). Swapping the CIQUAL entry would likely resolve this entirely.
fibre moderate error (14%) is minor and expected — fibre varies significantly between potato varieties and growing conditions, and CIQUAL reports a population average. Not actionable without a better CIQUAL match.
Next step: replace CIQUAL sunflower oil with high-oleic sunflower oil and re-run. That single change should bring sat_fat into the good range and reduce the overall residual from 1.18 to likely below 0.5.