## 3 Results and Discussion
### CATA Analysis and PCA  
The CATA data are presented in Figure 3. The CATA was conducted according to the guidelines described in [46]. The CATA data illustrated the perceptual positioning of the sensory attributes for each Yanggaeng sample. The attributes positioned near a product in the correspondence analysis indicated a strong perception of these characteristics in that sample. For example, PG was positioned close to stickiness and sourness, indicating a strong perception of these attributes. BY was associated with softness and sweetness, whereas PS was associated with an unpleasant aftertaste. JK and JG were linked to acerbity and grape flavor. Notably, JK's association of JK with acerbity and grape flavor aligned with the patterns observed in [47], where specific flavor attributes were correlated with overall acceptability, suggesting a potential contribution from these characteristics. Softness and sweetness were positively correlated in similar directions, whereas hardness and softness were negatively correlated in the opposite directions. The F1 axis (74.82%) accounted for most of the total variance and was interpreted as a dimension contrasting the intensity of texture and flavor as well as positive versus negative sensory perceptions. The negative side of F1 (left side) included attributes such as hardness, acerbity, and grape flavor, which are related to its strong texture, astringency, and traditional grape aroma. By contrast, the positive side of F1 featured softness, sweetness, and an unpleasant aftertaste, reflecting a softer texture and more subdued or undesirable sensory impressions. This distribution suggested that F1 represents a fundamental axis for differentiating the basic product characteristics, including texture, taste, and sensory valence. The F2 axis (14.59%) was interpreted as representing auxiliary flavor and textural attributes. Attributes such as stickiness, sourness, and grape taste were found on the positive side (upper region), emphasizing the inherent grape flavor. In contrast, the attributes associated with hardness and acerbity partially overlapped, indicating that F2 captured subtle flavor nuances and secondary textural features among the samples. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample (1)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Color**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sweetness**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sourness**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Aroma**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hardness**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Chewiness**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Overall**} \\  & & & & & & & & **Acceptability** \\ \hline BY & 6.06 \(\pm\) 2.07 & 5.90 \(\pm\) 1.71 & 4.78 \(\pm\) 2.46 & 5.22 \(\pm\) 2.07 & 5.40 \(\pm\) 2.06 & 6.12 \(\pm\) 1.80 & 6.20 \(\pm\) 1.76 (2a) \\ PG & 5.50 \(\pm\) 1.97 & 5.92 \(\pm\) 2.07 & 5.08 \(\pm\) 2.06 & 4.94 \(\pm\) 1.82 & 5.54 \(\pm\) 1.73 & 5.70 \(\pm\) 1.67 & 5.02 \(\pm\) 2.28 (3) \\ PK & 5.48 \(\pm\) 1.85 & 5.44 \(\pm\) 1.90 & 4.74 \(\pm\) 2.02 & 4.30 \(\pm\) 1.81 & 5.50 \(\pm\) 1.33 & 5.74 \(\pm\) 1.63 & 4.94 \(\pm\) 2.14 (3) \\ PS & 5.62 \(\pm\) 1.89 & 5.36 \(\pm\) 1.63 & 4.54 \(\pm\) 2.08 & 4.60 \(\pm\) 1.75 & 5.34 \(\pm\) 1.48 & 5.26 \(\pm\) 1.69 & 5.08 \(\pm\) 1.94 (3) \\ JG & 5.42 \(\pm\) 1.80 & 5.84 \(\pm\) 1.68 & 4.56 \(\pm\) 2.11 & 4.58 \(\pm\) 2.20 & 5.98 \(\pm\) 2.23 & 5.74 \(\pm\) 1.80 & 4.88 \(\pm\) 2.34 (3) \\ JK & 5.63 \(\pm\) 2.01 & 6.00 \(\pm\) 1.97 & 4.70 \(\pm\) 2.22 & 5.04 \(\pm\) 1.96 & 5.72 \(\pm\) 1.71 & 5.98 \(\pm\) 1.58 & 5.54 \(\pm\) 2.18 (3) \\ JS & 5.66 \(\pm\) 2.29 & 5.76 \(\pm\) 1.92 & 5.00 \(\pm\) 2.60 & 4.72 \(\pm\) 2.13 & 5.82 \(\pm\) 2.10 & 5.38 \(\pm\) 2.11 & 4.91 \(\pm\) 2.49 (3) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  \({}^{(1)}\) BY: control, PG: Powder Campbell Early, PK: Powder Kyoho, PS: Powder Shine Muscat, JG: Juice Campbell Early, JK: Juice Kyoho, JS: Juice Shine Muscat. All samples contained 8% grape powder or juice. (2) \({}^{(  
Comprehensive interpretation of the sensory evaluation and CATA analysis revealed distinct differences in consumer preferences among the samples.