It does not, and I suppose here is as good a place as any to explain why. The main reason is that I couldn’t think of an intuitive way to do it. ReCal2 simply assumes that every adjacent column pair is a new variable, but ReCal3 can’t do that since it has to be able to handle any number of coders starting with two. I briefly considered requiring users to enter the number of coders for ReCal3, which could then serve as a columnar multiple to produce that ReCal2 effect, but rejected this idea as too complicated.

ReCal’s error rate is fairly high (first-time users almost always make at least one error before completing a successful run) and I didn’t want to make the system any more complicated than it had to be. Anyone who’s ever designed a user interface will tell you that every extra hoop you force the user through generates more errors and inevitably increases attrition. I realize that my decision privileges new users at the expense of more savvy ones, but I would rather make ReCal more accessible than less, even if that means a bit more clicking for ReCal3 users. And isn’t that what undergrad coders and research assistants are for anyway?

EDIT: I have answered this question in the FAQ. ~DEEN