{ "version": "qe-current-proposals-0.3.0", "status": "provisional_not_accepted", "role_snapshot_version": "qe-current-roles-0.2.0", "ontology_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "source_inputs": { "roles": { "path": "data/proposals/current-roles.json", "sha256": "c70db54763b187c46ac43c7ce6ce3a0aa697bb6a9f684a9fad24386089e4d1a1" }, "inventory": { "path": "data/recovery/qe48-inventory.json", "sha256": "482580064641c87f3e0a8274d7df26c7e1d251454678aecc1b4a75c67e97acee" }, "holds": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r10-role-ownership-holds.json", "sha256": "fbac323bb8b660b73f2cccd46c9c1550db17a71f8f099180fce69e2cb08f2b32" }, "ownership_cases": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r20-effective-ownership-cases.json", "sha256": "f8bb478549cda665068c2cf4292c89743fbaa6468ed6eb74944ff6f1e3ca2799" }, "ownership_audit": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-all64-quality-audit.json", "sha256": "c3e9652dbc47f7458cde4f2747daafd667f6db308c816f9a2b7abc7dde9cb57c" }, "ontology": { "path": "data/ontology/manifest.yaml", "sha256": "025a347671f2fadb1224514abeba15f97904b785f6091e56618e0d8e00b12492" }, "canonical": { "path": "data/canonical/current.json", "sha256": "5bc2d65faecbf93054ba3eaf681fc3003ac025eb38c20131b0f87ae5c6663e78" }, "fixtures": { "path": "examples/architecture/fixtures.json", "sha256": "82c83e431c8429a29096ceab6ed121768456d071da319c20719b9b15a701c530" }, "semantic_review": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "sha256": "2e88665a303b13d3efd9841b117582724b0ae136a7b04f14ef56fb7fa2965272" }, "coverage": { "path": "data/proposals/coverage.json", "sha256": "f5161800a7963f4dd00e85b7cc65c7c0f4e0a37edddf270148eb2253eafc0a82" } }, "counts": { "inputs": 48, "active_roles": 71, "held_roles": 3, "ownership_cases": 64, "authored_cards": 9, "families": 95 }, "by_stack": { "Ontological": 26, "Epistemic": 24, "Decision": 21 }, "concepts": [ { "input_id": "P48-01", "original_title": "Opportunity cost", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C01", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-02", "original_title": "Trade-offs are unavoidable", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C02", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-03", "original_title": "Bottleneck determines throughput", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C03", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-04", "original_title": "Margin of safety", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE-EX-MARGIN", "identity_review_status": "candidate_fixture_seed_reuse", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-05", "original_title": "Avoid ruin first", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C05", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-06", "original_title": "Positive asymmetry matters", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C06", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-07", "original_title": "Position sizing matters", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C07", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-08", "original_title": "Optionality has value", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C08", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-09", "original_title": "Reversible vs irreversible decisions", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C09", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-10", "original_title": "Staged commitment", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C10", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-11", "original_title": "Front-load learning, back-load irreversibility", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C11", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-12", "original_title": "High-leverage first", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C12", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-13", "original_title": "Constraint-first prioritization", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C13", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-14", "original_title": "Comparative advantage", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C14", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-15", "original_title": "Small gains compound", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C15", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-16", "original_title": "Consistency beats bursts", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C16", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-17", "original_title": "Reputation compounds", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C17", "identity_review_status": "identity_and_independent_role_both_on_evidence_hold", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-18", "original_title": "Skills decay without use", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C18", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-19", "original_title": "Culture drifts if unattended", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C19", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-20", "original_title": "Feedback improves adaptation", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C20", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-21", "original_title": "Second-order effects matter", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C21", "identity_review_status": "distinct_second_order_candidate_role_overlap_open", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-22", "original_title": "Tight coupling creates fragility", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C22", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-23", "original_title": "Modularity contains failure", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C23", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-24", "original_title": "Variation + selection drives adaptation", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C24", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-25", "original_title": "Fit to environment beats force-fitting", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C25", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-26", "original_title": "Incentives drive behavior", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C26", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-27", "original_title": "Skin in the game", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C27", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-28", "original_title": "Win-win beats win-lose long-term", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C28", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-29", "original_title": "Reciprocity in repeated games", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C29", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-30", "original_title": "Map is not territory", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C30", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-31", "original_title": "Signal vs noise", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C31", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-32", "original_title": "Sample size / relevance matters", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C32", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-33", "original_title": "Bayesian updating", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C33", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-34", "original_title": "Calibration matters", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C34", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-35", "original_title": "Test alternative hypotheses", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C35", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-36", "original_title": "Seek disconfirming evidence", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C36", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-37", "original_title": "Correlation is not causation", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C37", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-38", "original_title": "Mechanism matters", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C38", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-39", "original_title": "Confirmation bias", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE-EX-BIAS", "identity_review_status": "candidate_fixture_seed_reuse", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-40", "original_title": "Motivated reasoning", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C40", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-41", "original_title": "Overconfidence", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C41", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-42", "original_title": "Framing effects", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C42", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-43", "original_title": "Perspective-taking improves judgment", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C43", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-44", "original_title": "Consensus is not proof", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C44", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-45", "original_title": "What gets measured gets gamed", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "identity_review_status": "candidate_fixture_seed_reuse", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-46", "original_title": "Legibility is not reality", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C46", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-47", "original_title": "Simplicity beats unnecessary complexity", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C47", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false }, { "input_id": "P48-48", "original_title": "Narrative shapes behavior", "identity_candidate_ref": "QE48-C48", "identity_review_status": "candidate_distinct_card_identity", "historical_roles_recovered": false, "accepted_identity": false } ], "active_roles": [ { "input_id": "P48-01", "title": "Opportunity cost", "owner_ref": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Compare a feasible choice with what its best displaced alternative could have achieved under the same objective.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-01", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-01/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "label": "Resource Allocation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-01/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-01", "title": "Opportunity cost", "owner_ref": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Choosing a feasible use of scarce resources entails foregoing the value of the highest-valued feasible alternative not chosen, relative to the same objective; other forgone options exist but do not each define the opportunity cost.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r8-semantic-precision.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-01", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_semantic_revision_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-01/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-SCAR", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-FIN", "label": "Finite Resources" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SCAR", "label": "Scarcity" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "r8_semantic_precision_proposed_pending_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-01/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-02", "title": "Trade-offs are unavoidable", "owner_ref": "QE48-C02", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Where finite resources, incompatible requirements, or binding constraints make alternatives mutually exclusive, advancing one feasible objective entails foregoing another; changing constraints, technology or coordination may remove a particular trade-off, so unavoidability is conditional.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-02", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-02/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-LIM", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "super_root_only_pending_more_specific_review", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-02/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-03", "title": "Bottleneck determines throughput", "owner_ref": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Identify which stage is actually constraining throughput using observed flows and plausible alternatives.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-03", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-03/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVAL", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVAL", "label": "Model Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-03/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-03", "title": "Bottleneck determines throughput", "owner_ref": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "hidden_structure", "effective_role_summary": "Under a stated flow model, a binding stage can cap achievable system throughput.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-03", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-03/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-BOT", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-CAP", "label": "Capacity Constraints" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-BOT", "label": "Bottleneck Dependence" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-03/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-04", "title": "Margin of safety", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-MARGIN", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Evaluate a feasible buffer against unacceptable loss and the opportunity cost of slack.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-04", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-04/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-SAFE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-BUF", "label": "Protective Buffers" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-SAFE", "label": "Safety Margin" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-04/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-04", "title": "Margin of safety", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-MARGIN", "role_id": "D2", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "When additional slack would displace essential commitments, compare exposure reduction, alternative protections, or reduced activity instead.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-04", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D2", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-04/Decision/D2", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-04/D2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-04", "title": "Margin of safety", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-MARGIN", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_bottleneck", "effective_role_summary": "An estimate may omit or misestimate important load conditions.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-04", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-04/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EST", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EST", "label": "Estimate Uncertainty" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-04/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-04", "title": "Margin of safety", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-MARGIN", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "The relevant load can vary across situations.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-04", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-04/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-LOAD", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-VAR", "label": "Variability" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LOAD", "label": "Load Variation" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-04/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-05", "title": "Avoid ruin first", "owner_ref": "QE48-C05", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Define a ruin threshold in terms of unrecoverable loss of solvency, continuity, or essential capabilities and a relevant time horizon; before seeking upside, reject or limit exposure when credible adverse scenarios exceed the chosen survival constraint.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r13-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-05", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-05/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-LIMIT", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-LIMIT", "label": "Downside Limitation" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "r13_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-05/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-05", "title": "Avoid ruin first", "owner_ref": "QE48-C05", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Given a ruin threshold and horizon, construct credible severe-loss paths, examine dependence and tail scenarios, and assess whether those paths could exceed the survival limit while identifying uncertainty and omitted scenarios.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r15-role-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-05", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "title_only_R14_editorial_hypothesis_not_empirically_verified" }, "legacy_summary_ref": null, "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-UNC", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-UNC", "label": "Uncertainty Assessment" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_uncertainty_method", "review_status": "r15_scoped_role_candidate_pending_editorial_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-05/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-06", "title": "Positive asymmetry matters", "owner_ref": "QE48-C06", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Compare downside scale, upside possibilities and probabilities before accepting exposure.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-06", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-06/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-06/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-06", "title": "Positive asymmetry matters", "owner_ref": "QE48-C06", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "hidden_structure", "effective_role_summary": "A particular opportunity can have an asymmetric payoff distribution with limited or specified downside and potentially larger upside under stated scenarios; calling it favorable requires assessing magnitudes and likelihoods, and skew alone does not establish positive expected value.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r8-semantic-precision.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-06", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_semantic_revision_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": null, "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-VAR", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-VAR", "label": "Variability" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r8_semantic_precision_proposed_pending_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-06/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-07", "title": "Position sizing matters", "owner_ref": "QE48-C07", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Size a position so its adverse outcomes fit a stated risk budget.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-07", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-07/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-07/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-08", "title": "Optionality has value", "owner_ref": "QE48-C08", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Evaluate the cost-adjusted value of preserving feasible future choices under uncertainty, including contractual rights and practical opportunities; account for acquisition, carrying, exercise, and expiry costs when relevant, and distinguish keeping a choice available from exercising it or reversing an earlier commitment.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r17-semantic-precision.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-08", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_semantic_precision_not_source_verification" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-08/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-OUT", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-OUT", "label": "Outcome Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r17_semantic_precision_proposed_not_accepted", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-08/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-08", "title": "Optionality has value", "owner_ref": "QE48-C08", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "The future actions genuinely available to an actor depend on existing rights, resources, contingent conditions, and expiry. State changes can create or remove feasible choices regardless of how attractive or valuable the actor considers exercising them.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r15-role-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-08", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "title_only_R14_editorial_hypothesis_not_empirically_verified" }, "legacy_summary_ref": null, "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-LIM", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_super_root_no_valuation_claim", "review_status": "r15_scoped_role_candidate_pending_editorial_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-08/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-09", "title": "Reversible vs irreversible decisions", "owner_ref": "QE48-C09", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "When reversal is difficult or uncertainty material, prefer feasible staged commitments, exit conditions, or replaceable choices where the value of flexibility exceeds their costs.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-09", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-09/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-REVERSIBLE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-REVERSIBLE", "label": "Reversible Commitment" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-09/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-09", "title": "Reversible vs irreversible decisions", "owner_ref": "QE48-C09", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Assess what parts of a proposed decision can be reversed, the remaining consequences, exit costs, and uncertainty about those estimates.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-09", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-09/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-UNC", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-UNC", "label": "Uncertainty Assessment" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-09/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-10", "title": "Staged commitment", "owner_ref": "QE48-C10", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Sequence commitments in bounded stages where partial investment is feasible.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-10", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-10/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-REVERSIBLE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-REVERSIBLE", "label": "Reversible Commitment" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-10/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-11", "title": "Front-load learning, back-load irreversibility", "owner_ref": "QE48-C11", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Delay expensive lock-in when targeted early learning is worth its cost.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-11", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-11/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-REVERSIBLE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-REVERSIBLE", "label": "Reversible Commitment" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-11/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-11", "title": "Front-load learning, back-load irreversibility", "owner_ref": "QE48-C11", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Before irreversible commitment, obtain decision-relevant observations through a bounded trial, direct inquiry or experiment, and record what the evidence changes.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r4-role-repairs.json", "collection": "repairs", "input_id": "P48-11", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r4-role-repairs.json#P48-11/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-ACCESS", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-ACCESS", "label": "Information Acquisition" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-11/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-12", "title": "High-leverage first", "owner_ref": "QE48-C12", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "When increments are feasible and divisible, compare their relevant marginal value per unit of a shared scarce resource and update that comparison as returns change; indivisibility, complementarities, or interacting constraints require comparing feasible bundles rather than applying a fixed ratio ranking.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-12", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-12/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "label": "Resource Allocation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-12/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-13", "title": "Constraint-first prioritization", "owner_ref": "QE48-C13", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Prioritize interventions addressing an identified binding constraint under a stated objective, including constraints outside flow throughput.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-13", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-13/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "label": "Resource Allocation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-13/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-14", "title": "Comparative advantage", "owner_ref": "QE48-C14", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Consider specializing in an activity with lower relative opportunity cost when exchange, coordination, and other constraints allow net gains relative to feasible alternatives.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-14", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-14/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "label": "Resource Allocation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-14/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-14", "title": "Comparative advantage", "owner_ref": "QE48-C14", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Relative to agent B and a specified feasible alternative, agent A has comparative advantage in activity X when A's opportunity cost of producing an additional unit of X is lower under comparable constraints; this does not by itself establish absolute productivity or gains from exchange.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r17-semantic-precision.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-14", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_semantic_precision_not_source_verification" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-14/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-SCAR", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-FIN", "label": "Finite Resources" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SCAR", "label": "Scarcity" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "r17_semantic_precision_proposed_not_accepted", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-14/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-15", "title": "Small gains compound", "owner_ref": "QE48-C15", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Across successive intervals, small retained gains compound only if the accumulated positive base increases and subsequent positive net increments depend on that base; independent fixed gains merely add.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-15", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-15/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-ACC", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-TIME", "label": "Time and Change" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-ACC", "label": "Accumulation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-15/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-16", "title": "Consistency beats bursts", "owner_ref": "QE48-C16", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Prefer sustainable repeated effort over spikes when the task rewards regular practice.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-16", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-16/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "super_root_only_pending_more_specific_review", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-16/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-18", "title": "Skills decay without use", "owner_ref": "QE48-C18", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Some unused capabilities degrade over time at task-dependent rates.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-18", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-18/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-TIME", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-TIME", "label": "Time and Change" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-18/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-19", "title": "Culture drifts if unattended", "owner_ref": "QE48-C19", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "When organizational norms are not deliberately maintained or checked, turnover, informal imitation, incentives, and changing conditions can shift actual behavior away from intended norms; drift is conditional and need not be deterioration.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r12-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-19", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-19/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-DYN", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r12_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-19/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-20", "title": "Feedback improves adaptation", "owner_ref": "QE48-C20", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Feedback from observations may adjust future behavior; useful adaptation depends on signal quality, delay and system response.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-20", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-20/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-FEEDBACK", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-PROP", "label": "Consequence Propagation" }, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-FEEDBACK", "label": "Feedback Loops" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-20/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-21", "title": "Second-order effects matter", "owner_ref": "QE48-C21", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "An intervention can produce an immediate consequence that in turn produces additional indirect consequences through dependencies or later responses; a downstream effect is not automatically second-order unless it is mediated by an earlier effect.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r9-role-and-identity-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-21", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_concept_distinction_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-21/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-PROP", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-PROP", "label": "Consequence Propagation" }, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r9_second_order_distinction_proposed_pending_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-21/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-22", "title": "Tight coupling creates fragility", "owner_ref": "QE48-C22", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "When components depend on fast or tightly synchronized interactions with little independent slack, a local disturbance can propagate before isolation or recovery; coupling increases some cascade risks but is not itself proof of system fragility or the only cause of common-mode failure.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r13-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-22", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-22/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-PROP", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-PROP", "label": "Consequence Propagation" }, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r13_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-22/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-23", "title": "Modularity contains failure", "owner_ref": "QE48-C23", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "design_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Choose modular boundaries when containment and independent changes justify interface costs.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-23", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-23/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "super_root_only_pending_more_specific_review", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-23/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-23", "title": "Modularity contains failure", "owner_ref": "QE48-C23", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Separately controlled modules with effective interfaces can interrupt fault propagation through dependencies, while hidden shared resources or tightly coupled paths can bypass those boundaries.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r12-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-23", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-23/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-PROP", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-PROP", "label": "Consequence Propagation" }, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r12_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-23/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-24", "title": "Variation + selection drives adaptation", "owner_ref": "QE48-C24", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Populations generate or contain variants; environmental conditions can differentially preserve them, changing trait distributions across repeated selection. This mechanism does not necessarily improve fitness or serve a goal.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r7-role-completeness-proposals.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-24", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "title_inferred_editorial_revision" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-24/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-SELECT", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-TIME", "label": "Time and Change" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SELECT", "label": "Selection Processes" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r7_semantic_revision_requires_editorial_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-24/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-25", "title": "Fit to environment beats force-fitting", "owner_ref": "QE48-C25", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Adjust a plan or its surrounding conditions to improve fit under chosen goals.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-25", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-25/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "super_root_only_pending_more_specific_review", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-25/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-26", "title": "Incentives drive behavior", "owner_ref": "QE48-C26", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Agents may adjust actions in response to perceived rewards, penalties, control rights, and constraints; perceived incentives need not match stated objectives or actual consequences.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r7-role-completeness-proposals.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-26", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "title_inferred_editorial_revision" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-26/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-RESP", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-RESP", "label": "Adaptive Responses" }, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r7_semantic_revision_requires_editorial_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-27", "title": "Skin in the game", "owner_ref": "QE48-C27", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "design_implication", "effective_role_summary": "When feasible, design decision rights and accountability so those exercising meaningful control bear proportionate consequences, while protecting affected third parties from unmanaged externalities.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-27", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-27/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-INC", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-DES", "label": "Governance" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-INC", "label": "Incentive Design" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-27/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-27", "title": "Skin in the game", "owner_ref": "QE48-C27", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "hidden_structure", "effective_role_summary": "Decision authority and exposure to consequences can be distributed differently: an actor influencing an outcome may bear the resulting upside or downside, or may shift costs onto others. This structural arrangement does not by itself establish changed behavior, sound judgment, or just incentives.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r15-role-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-27", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "QE_editorial_structural_classification_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-27/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-SYS", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_super_root_structural_exposure", "review_status": "r15_role_family_boundary_repaired_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-27/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-28", "title": "Win-win beats win-lose long-term", "owner_ref": "QE48-C28", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Before preferring a win-win arrangement to a win-lose alternative over repeated interactions, compare expected joint value, distribution of gains, credibility of cooperation, defection risk, and time horizon under the stated objective.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r12-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-28", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-28/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-REL", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-REL", "label": "Relationship Design" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "r12_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-28/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-28", "title": "Win-win beats win-lose long-term", "owner_ref": "QE48-C28", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Interdependent stakeholders can sometimes produce additional joint value through coordination, depending on feasible gains and incentives.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-28", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-28/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-STAKE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-REL", "label": "Relational Dynamics" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-STAKE", "label": "Stakeholder Interdependence" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-28/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-29", "title": "Reciprocity in repeated games", "owner_ref": "QE48-C29", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "In repeated interactions, an actor may condition current cooperation or defection on a counterpart's observed previous behavior and expected future encounters; this contingent response is reciprocity, not merely a change in incentives from experience.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r8-semantic-precision.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-29", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_semantic_revision_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-29/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-REL", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-REL", "label": "Relational Dynamics" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r8_semantic_precision_proposed_pending_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-29/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-30", "title": "Map is not territory", "owner_ref": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "boundary", "effective_role_summary": "A representation supports conclusions only within the aspects and conditions it represents adequately for the intended purpose; omitted features can limit its applicability without making every simplification defective.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-30", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-30/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-30/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-31", "title": "Signal vs noise", "owner_ref": "QE48-C31", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Define the task-relevant signal as evidence that discriminates a specified state or hypothesis, estimate nuisance variation and measurement noise, and check whether an observed pattern remains informative under suitable comparisons.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r12-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-31", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-31/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r12_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-31/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-32", "title": "Sample size / relevance matters", "owner_ref": "QE48-C32", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Before generalizing, evaluate the sampling frame, relevance to the target population, selection bias, dependence among observations, and effective sample size relative to the uncertainty of the estimate; a large biased sample does not repair representativeness.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r12-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-32", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-32/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r12_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-32/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-33", "title": "Bayesian updating", "owner_ref": "QE48-C33", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Update uncertain beliefs using a stated prior and the likelihood of observed evidence under a model; account for dependence among observations and model uncertainty rather than repeatedly counting correlated evidence as independent.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r17-semantic-precision.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-33", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_semantic_precision_not_source_verification" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-33/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-INF", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r17_semantic_precision_proposed_not_accepted", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-33/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-34", "title": "Calibration matters", "owner_ref": "QE48-C34", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "For sufficiently many relevant probability forecasts, compare probabilities with observed frequencies in suitable groups and examine calibration separately from resolution or discrimination; a proper scoring rule can assess combined forecast quality but alone does not isolate calibration, and one correct prediction is not calibration evidence.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r13-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-34", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-34/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-JUDGE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-JUDGE", "label": "Judgment Calibration" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r13_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-34/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-35", "title": "Test alternative hypotheses", "owner_ref": "QE48-C35", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Compare rival explanations using evidence that can distinguish their predictions.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-35", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-35/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-COMP", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-COMP", "label": "Consistent Evidence Comparison" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-36", "title": "Seek disconfirming evidence", "owner_ref": "QE48-C36", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Deliberately search for observations that would count against a favored explanation even when no formal comparison set is defined.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-36", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-36/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-RIVAL", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-ACCESS", "label": "Information Acquisition" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-RIVAL", "label": "Disconfirming Evidence Search" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-36/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-37", "title": "Correlation is not causation", "owner_ref": "QE48-C37", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "boundary", "effective_role_summary": "Observed association alone does not identify a causal effect without an adequate identification design or assumptions that address alternative causal explanations.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-37", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-37/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-37/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-38", "title": "Mechanism matters", "owner_ref": "QE48-C38", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Evaluate a proposed causal mechanism using distinguishing observations, plausible rival explanations and appropriate tests; a coherent mechanism story alone does not establish that the mechanism occurred.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r17-semantic-precision.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-38", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_semantic_precision_not_source_verification" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-38/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVAL", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVAL", "label": "Model Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r17_semantic_precision_proposed_not_accepted", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-38/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-39", "title": "Confirmation bias", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-BIAS", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "design_implication", "effective_role_summary": "For an important choice, use a proportionate independent challenge before commitment.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-39", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-39/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-BIAS", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-DES", "label": "Governance" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-BIAS", "label": "Bias-Aware Review" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-39/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-39", "title": "Confirmation bias", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-BIAS", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_bottleneck", "effective_role_summary": "Belief-driven unequal scrutiny of confirming and conflicting evidence can distort an inference.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-39", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-39/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-CONF", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIAS", "label": "Distortion & Bias" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIASED-EVAL", "label": "Biased Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-CONF", "label": "Confirmation Bias" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-39/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-39", "title": "Confirmation bias", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-BIAS", "role_id": "E2", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "judgment_corrective", "effective_role_summary": "Compare a serious rival explanation using the same stated evidence standards.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-39", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E2", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-39/Epistemic/E2", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-COMP", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-COMP", "label": "Consistent Evidence Comparison" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-39", "title": "Confirmation bias", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-BIAS", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Information search or interpretation can favor an existing belief.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-39", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-39/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-SEL", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-COG", "label": "Cognitive Processes" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SEL", "label": "Belief-Congruent Processing" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-39/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-40", "title": "Motivated reasoning", "owner_ref": "QE48-C40", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_bottleneck", "effective_role_summary": "Desired conclusions can lead to unequal scrutiny or interpretation of favorable and unfavorable evidence, distorting an inference.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-40", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-40/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-BIASED-EVAL", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIAS", "label": "Distortion & Bias" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIASED-EVAL", "label": "Biased Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-40/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-40", "title": "Motivated reasoning", "owner_ref": "QE48-C40", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "A desired conclusion can influence how a person attends to or interprets supporting information.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-40", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-40/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-COG", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-COG", "label": "Cognitive Processes" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-40/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-41", "title": "Overconfidence", "owner_ref": "QE48-C41", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_bottleneck", "effective_role_summary": "Overconfidence is an epistemic failure in which expressed certainty exceeds the strength of available evidence or a defensible probability judgment. One confidently wrong outcome alone does not demonstrate persistent overconfidence across comparable forecasts.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r26-semantic-correction.json", "collection": "repair", "input_id": "P48-41", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r4-role-repairs.json#P48-41/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-BIAS", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIAS", "label": "Distortion & Bias" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r26_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-41/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-42", "title": "Framing effects", "owner_ref": "QE48-C42", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_bottleneck", "effective_role_summary": "Even when the relevant underlying outcomes are equivalent, the presentation frame can distort evidential interpretation and change judged attractiveness.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r4-role-repairs.json", "collection": "repairs", "input_id": "P48-42", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r4-role-repairs.json#P48-42/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-BIAS", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIAS", "label": "Distortion & Bias" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-42/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-42", "title": "Framing effects", "owner_ref": "QE48-C42", "role_id": "E2", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "judgment_corrective", "effective_role_summary": "Compare materially equivalent descriptions using the same outcome, baseline, and probability representations before relying on a framing-sensitive judgment.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r4-role-repairs.json", "collection": "repairs", "input_id": "P48-42", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E2", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r4-role-repairs.json#P48-42/Epistemic/E2", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-42/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-42", "title": "Framing effects", "owner_ref": "QE48-C42", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Choices and judgments can vary with presentation even when the relevant underlying facts are comparable.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-42", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-42/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-COG", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-COG", "label": "Cognitive Processes" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-42/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-43", "title": "Perspective-taking improves judgment", "owner_ref": "QE48-C43", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "Compare relevant stakeholders' information, incentives, and rival interpretations; validate the perspectives against available evidence rather than assuming that empathy or perspective-taking guarantees accuracy.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r7-role-completeness-proposals.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-43", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "title_inferred_editorial_revision" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-43/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-PERSPECT", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-SOC", "label": "Perspective & Social Knowing" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-PERSPECT", "label": "Perspective Taking" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "r7_semantic_revision_requires_editorial_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-43/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-44", "title": "Consensus is not proof", "owner_ref": "QE48-C44", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "boundary", "effective_role_summary": "Agreement alone does not establish a claim as true; its evidential weight depends on source reliability and dependence, including shared evidence, rather than simply the number of agreeing reports.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-44", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-44/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-44/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-45", "title": "What gets measured gets gamed", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "design_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Use the specified independent-outcome comparison before relying on a consequential proxy to change rewards; do not treat it as completed when its required observation is unavailable.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-45", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-45/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-MET", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-DES", "label": "Governance" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-MET", "label": "Metric Governance" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-45/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-45", "title": "What gets measured gets gamed", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_bottleneck", "effective_role_summary": "Treating proxy improvement as sufficient evidence of better service can conceal divergence.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-45", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-45/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-SUB", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIAS", "label": "Distortion & Bias" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIASED-EVAL", "label": "Biased Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-SUB", "label": "Proxy Substitution" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-45/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-45", "title": "What gets measured gets gamed", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "role_id": "E2", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "reasoning_method", "effective_role_summary": "A proxy-divergence check compares measured progress with independently observed outcomes.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-45", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E2", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-45/Epistemic/E2", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-PROXY", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVAL", "label": "Model Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-PROXY", "label": "Proxy Validation" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-45/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-45", "title": "What gets measured gets gamed", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Targets can redirect team effort toward measured results.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-45", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-45/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-TGT", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-RESP", "label": "Adaptive Responses" }, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-TGT", "label": "Target-Driven Adaptation" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-45/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-45", "title": "What gets measured gets gamed", "owner_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "role_id": "O2", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "hidden_structure", "effective_role_summary": "A proxy can reward behavior that differs from the intended service outcome.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-45", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O2", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-45/Ontological/O2", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-SYS", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_super_root", "review_status": "r16_structural_family_correction_proposed_pending_source_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-45/O2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-46", "title": "Legibility is not reality", "owner_ref": "QE48-C46", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "When institutions act on simplified categories or recorded indicators, eligibility, resources, and behavior may change even though the categories omit relevant features of people or situations.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r7-role-completeness-proposals.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-46", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_editorial_candidate_from_user_title_only" }, "legacy_summary_ref": null, "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-DYN", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r7_new_role_requires_editorial_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-46/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-47", "title": "Simplicity beats unnecessary complexity", "owner_ref": "QE48-C47", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Prefer the least complex design adequate for required safety, reliability and objectives.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-47", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-47/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "super_root_only_pending_more_specific_review", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-47/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" }, { "input_id": "P48-48", "title": "Narrative shapes behavior", "owner_ref": "QE48-C48", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "A narrative interpreted by an individual can change that person's attention, expectations, choices or conduct; this contribution does not by itself establish an additional group-coordination mechanism.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r9-role-and-identity-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-48", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_concept_distinction_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-48/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-COG", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-COG", "label": "Cognitive Processes" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "r9_narrative_cognitive_scope_proposed_pending_review", "human_accepted": false, "role_ref": "P48-48/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "canonical_type_supported": true, "canonical_readiness": "not_assessed_not_approved" } ], "held_roles": [ { "input_id": "P48-17", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "original_role": { "input_id": "P48-17", "title": "Reputation compounds", "owner_ref": "QE48-C17", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Reputation can compound if retained credible conduct increases a reputation base and the resulting opportunities generate further positive net reputation gains that depend on that base; otherwise it may merely accumulate, stagnate, or decay.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-17", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-17/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-ACC", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-TIME", "label": "Time and Change" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-ACC", "label": "Accumulation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "status": "candidate_independent_role_withheld_pending_evidence", "reactivation_criteria": [ "Show a concrete reputation-feedback mechanism where the retained base causally increases later positive net reputation growth", "Identify boundary conditions and counterexamples such as reputational decay and saturation", "Explain reusable independent mechanism beyond P48-15 general base-dependent compounding" ], "reference_role": "P48-15/O1", "overlap_case": "R9C-04", "approved": false, "role_ref": "P48-17/O1", "record_kind": "held_proposal" }, { "input_id": "P48-40", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E2", "original_role": { "input_id": "P48-40", "title": "Motivated reasoning", "owner_ref": "QE48-C40", "role_id": "E2", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "judgment_corrective", "effective_role_summary": "Compare support for favored and unwelcome explanations using the same stated evidential criteria, looking for serious counterexamples.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-40", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E2", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-40/Epistemic/E2", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-COMP", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-COMP", "label": "Consistent Evidence Comparison" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "status": "candidate_independent_role_withheld_pending_evidence", "reactivation_criteria": [ "Demonstrate a distinct process that detects goal-motivated manipulation of evidential standards, rather than generic rival-evidence comparison", "Review canonical ownership and whether QE-EX-BIAS/E2 should be referenced rather than duplicated", "Provide source/provenance supporting independent role identity" ], "reference_role": "P48-39/E2", "overlap_case": "R9C-01", "approved": false, "role_ref": "P48-40/E2", "record_kind": "held_proposal" }, { "input_id": "P48-46", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "original_role": { "input_id": "P48-46", "title": "Legibility is not reality", "owner_ref": "QE48-C46", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_guardrail", "effective_role_summary": "Check which relevant realities formal categories or visible indicators leave unrepresented.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-46", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-46/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "status": "candidate_independent_role_withheld_pending_evidence", "reactivation_criteria": [ "Specify an institutional-specific check that is not merely finding a representation's omissions", "Separate causal institutional effects under O1 from the general model-limit E1", "Review source expression to existing method ownership before restoring an independent E1" ], "reference_role": "P48-30/E1", "overlap_case": "R9C-03", "approved": false, "role_ref": "P48-46/E1", "record_kind": "held_proposal" } ], "ownership_cases": [ { "case_id": "R18C-01", "left_role_ref": "P48-21/O1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-SECOND/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "P48-21/O1 requires an immediate consequence that causally mediates a further effect, while maintained QE-EX-SECOND/O1 also permits an initial change directly affecting a dependent component. Sharing Consequence Propagation does not prove equivalent role conditions.", "adjudication_gate": "Compare necessary causal mediation and family partiality before choosing one owner; no approved role reuse.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_overlap_review" }, "editorial_disposition": "reject_role_equivalence_retain_distinct_candidate", "rationale": "Immediate causal mediation is required by P48-21/O1 but not by maintained QE-EX-SECOND/O1. Related families and a shared consequence topic do not permit an O1 identity merge.", "discriminating_review_test": "Check two controlled scenarios: direct change of dependent component without a mediating consequence, versus downstream effect actually mediated through a first effect.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve QE48-C21/O1 as an unapproved distinct proposal; reference the maintained role only for partial overlap.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_maintained_card_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-21/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "An intervention can produce an immediate consequence that in turn produces additional indirect consequences through dependencies or later responses; a downstream effect is not automatically second-order unless it is mediated by an earlier effect." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-SECOND/O1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "An initial change can affect dependent parts or prompt later responses." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-02", "left_role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Broad incentive response includes social costs and constraints; the maintained target-reward role is a specific case.", "adjudication_gate": "Review shared core; keep one broad and one target-specific scope until role ownership evidence supports reuse.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "general_vs_specialized_mechanism" }, "editorial_disposition": "general_mechanism_vs_target_specific", "rationale": "The general perceived-incentives mechanism extends to penalties, status and constraints without a formal reward target; maintained QE-EX-INCENTIVES/O1 describes a target-reward mechanism.", "discriminating_review_test": "Test behavior altered by reputational penalty with no designed reward metric, then test one caused by explicit rewarded target; check overlap but not equivalence.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep general incentive mechanism independently scoped; propose specialization relation for later graph review.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_maintained_card_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Agents may adjust actions in response to perceived rewards, penalties, control rights, and constraints; perceived incentives need not match stated objectives or actual consequences." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES/O1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "Rewarded targets may change which actions people prioritize." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-03", "left_role_ref": "P48-45/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Target gaming is a particular adaptive response to consequential proxies, not all incentive-guided behavior.", "adjudication_gate": "Retain metric-specific mechanism unless proxy divergence and target response are shown redundant.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "specialized_target_response" }, "editorial_disposition": "specialized_mechanism_preserve_multirole_owner", "rationale": "Target gaming is a conditional instance of incentive responsiveness involving consequential proxies; P48-45 also has separate outcome-proxy diagnosis and governance roles.", "discriminating_review_test": "Hold perceived rewards constant while varying the proxy's alignment with intended outcomes; compare whether gaming occurs without mistaking all adaptation for manipulation.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep metric-gaming candidate separate; do not duplicate generic incentive role without later role-level ownership approval.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-45/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Targets can redirect team effort toward measured results." }, { "role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Agents may adjust actions in response to perceived rewards, penalties, control rights, and constraints; perceived incentives need not match stated objectives or actual consequences." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-04", "left_role_ref": "P48-45/O2", "right_role_ref": "P48-45/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "The metric target's proxy misalignment is a structural condition; target-driven gaming is an observed adaptive response.", "adjudication_gate": "Preserve O2 precondition separately from O1 behavior; audit objective and time ordering.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "distinct_within_card_structural_roles" }, "editorial_disposition": "within_card_distinct_structural_roles", "rationale": "P48-45/O2 is proxy–objective divergence that may exist without observed adaptation, while P48-45/O1 describes actual target-driven response.", "discriminating_review_test": "Construct an organization with misaligned metric but no actor response, then one with measurable adaptation; compare necessity and temporal order.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep O1 and O2 as separate functions within one fixture-seeded concept; no new Card implied.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-45/O2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A proxy can reward behavior that differs from the intended service outcome." }, { "role_ref": "P48-45/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Targets can redirect team effort toward measured results." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-05", "left_role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "right_role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Comparison against rival explanations resembles the confirmation-bias fixture corrective but may be reusable across many epistemic problems.", "adjudication_gate": "Decide where generic evidence comparison is owned, and whether bias-specific use should be a link rather than a copied method.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "corrective_method_overlap" }, "editorial_disposition": "corrective_method_owner_unresolved", "rationale": "Confirmation-bias E2's rival comparison may instantiate P48-35/E1's general hypothesis method; the title-only record does not demonstrate an independently different protocol.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare exact inputs, neutral counterfactual criteria, and stopping rules for the bias-specific correction against general rival-hypothesis assessment.", "proposed_resolution": "Do not mint an independent generic corrective owner or merge it until protocol ownership is reviewed.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare a serious rival explanation using the same stated evidence standards." }, { "role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare rival explanations using evidence that can distinguish their predictions." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-06", "left_role_ref": "P48-40/E2", "right_role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Motivated-reasoning corrective E2 was held because generic fair comparison may duplicate the confirmation-bias corrective.", "adjudication_gate": "Do not reactivate held E2 without a demonstrably motivation-specific corrective protocol.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "held_method_duplicate" }, "editorial_disposition": "preserve_held_inactive_duplicate_method", "rationale": "Motivated-reasoning E2 is held because symmetric comparison overlaps confirmation-bias E2; the prior record offers no motivation-specific operation.", "discriminating_review_test": "Require a procedure that identifies incentives or desired conclusions modifying evidential thresholds beyond generic comparison, with a reproducible distinguishing example.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-40/E2 inactive; do not count or reactivate it in the active role inventory. This hold can change only after a separately specified motivation-sensitive corrective operation is independently reviewed.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_held_role_contract", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-40/E2", "record_kind": "held_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare support for favored and unwelcome explanations using the same stated evidential criteria, looking for serious counterexamples." }, { "role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare a serious rival explanation using the same stated evidence standards." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-07", "left_role_ref": "P48-46/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-30/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Institutional legibility's held E1 overlaps the general map/territory representation check.", "adjudication_gate": "Do not revive a generic E1 unless it adds an independently testable institutional epistemic method.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "held_model_omission_method" }, "editorial_disposition": "preserve_held_inactive_duplicate_method", "rationale": "Institutional legibility E1 is held because checking model omissions appears to duplicate general Map Is Not Territory/E1; institutional effects may belong to O1 instead.", "discriminating_review_test": "Specify an independently testable administrative category audit that cannot be performed by the general representation-omission method.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-46/E1 inactive and institutional causal O1 independently scoped. Activation requires a new institution-specific epistemic test beyond the general omission check, not new wording alone.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_held_role_contract", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-46/E1", "record_kind": "held_proposal", "current_summary": "Check which relevant realities formal categories or visible indicators leave unrepresented." }, { "role_ref": "P48-30/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A representation supports conclusions only within the aspects and conditions it represents adequately for the intended purpose; omitted features can limit its applicability without making every simplification defective." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-08", "left_role_ref": "P48-17/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-15/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Reputation compounding was held because trust history alone does not demonstrate base-dependent positive net growth.", "adjudication_gate": "Require retained net positive base-dependent growth and a distinct use case before activating O1.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "held_conditional_specialization" }, "editorial_disposition": "preserve_held_inactive_unsupported_growth", "rationale": "Reputation history does not itself prove retained, positive, base-dependent net reputation growth distinct from general accumulation.", "discriminating_review_test": "Demand a dynamic model where the current reputation base causally increases later net reputation gains, plus counterexamples of saturation or decay.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-17/O1 inactive; preserve the source title but do not claim a verified compounding law.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_held_role_contract", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-17/O1", "record_kind": "held_proposal", "current_summary": "Reputation can compound if retained credible conduct increases a reputation base and the resulting opportunities generate further positive net reputation gains that depend on that base; otherwise it may merely accumulate, stagnate, or decay." }, { "role_ref": "P48-15/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Across successive intervals, small retained gains compound only if the accumulated positive base increases and subsequent positive net increments depend on that base; independent fixed gains merely add." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-09", "left_role_ref": "P48-10/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-09/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Staging a commitment can help reversible design but does not automatically make intermediate steps reversible.", "counterexample": "An early nonrefundable deposit in a staged project can still be irrecoverable.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep bounded-stage policy distinct; demand actual exit tests before claiming reversibility.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "related_distinct_commitment_policy" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_staging_vs_reversal_policy", "rationale": "Staged commitment partitions an investment into checkpoints; reversal design instead concerns whether the actor can genuinely undo, replace, or exit an already chosen position. The two policies may coexist but a stage boundary alone gives no exit right.", "discriminating_review_test": "Take a staged procurement with a nonrefundable initial deposit and no termination clause. Compare whether later releases can be withheld against whether the initial deposit and obligations can be reversed. Treat only the former as staged.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-10/D1 staged commitment and P48-09/D1 reversible-design policy as independent candidate roles. Add a conditional means-to-end relation only if an actual exit option survives each stage.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-10/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Sequence commitments in bounded stages where partial investment is feasible." }, { "role_ref": "P48-09/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When reversal is difficult or uncertainty material, prefer feasible staged commitments, exit conditions, or replaceable choices where the value of flexibility exceeds their costs." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-10", "left_role_ref": "P48-11/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-10/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Learning-before-lock-in requires a consequential evidence result and timing choice beyond generic staging.", "counterexample": "A multi-stage implementation with no new information still counts as staged commitment.", "adjudication_gate": "Retain distinct E/D roles if value of early information changes irreversible commitment timing.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "specialized_learning_before_lock_in" }, "editorial_disposition": "candidate_specialization_conditional", "rationale": "Learning-before-lock-in adds an expected decision-relevant information gain and the cost of delaying irreversibility; generic staging requires neither observation nor belief revision. Similar sequence does not establish the same rationale or ownership.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare two equal two-stage investments, one with a diagnostic trial that materially changes the second commitment and another with scheduled installments that reveal nothing. Only the first supplies information value.", "proposed_resolution": "Retain a scoped learning-timing candidate pending a reusable test-and-update procedure; retain general staged commitment separately. Reuse as a procedure if information does not change commitment timing.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-11/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Delay expensive lock-in when targeted early learning is worth its cost." }, { "role_ref": "P48-10/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Sequence commitments in bounded stages where partial investment is feasible." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-11", "left_role_ref": "P48-14/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-01/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Comparative advantage requires a relative opportunity-cost comparison across actors and activities; opportunity cost alone does not.", "counterexample": "Two actors may both have forgone alternatives yet have equal relative opportunity costs.", "adjudication_gate": "Retain differentiated O roles; require comparator and feasible alternative whenever specializing.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "specialized_relative_cost_mechanism" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_relative_cost_structure", "rationale": "Comparative advantage is a relation of relative opportunity costs across specified activities and comparators, while general opportunity cost applies to choosing between feasible alternatives without another actor or specialization.", "discriminating_review_test": "Construct two producers with different absolute output and compute each unit's foregone alternative output. If no producer has lower relative cost of the tested activity, neither has that comparative advantage even though opportunity costs exist.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep general opportunity-cost O1 and comparative-advantage O1 distinct. Require the comparator, alternative activity, and relative sacrifice measure before authoring a specialization relationship.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-14/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Relative to agent B and a specified feasible alternative, agent A has comparative advantage in activity X when A's opportunity cost of producing an additional unit of X is lower under comparable constraints; this does not by itself establish absolute productivity or gains from exchange." }, { "role_ref": "P48-01/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Choosing a feasible use of scarce resources entails foregoing the value of the highest-valued feasible alternative not chosen, relative to the same objective; other forgone options exist but do not each define the opportunity cost." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-12", "left_role_ref": "P48-41/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-34/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Overconfidence names an evidential or forecast failure; calibration is a repeated forecast assessment method.", "counterexample": "A single unjustified certainty judgment need not demonstrate systematic miscalibration.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep separate failure and assessment roles, with frequency evidence required for calibration.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "failure_vs_diagnostic_method" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_failure_vs_calibration_method", "rationale": "An overconfident judgment is unwarranted certainty given available evidence; calibration evaluates expressed probability against outcomes over enough comparable cases. One unjustified claim is not evidence of systematic miscalibration.", "discriminating_review_test": "Contrast one unsupported 99% claim that happens to come true with a large sequence of scored 90% forecasts whose observed success frequency is 65%. The former can reveal unjustified certainty; the latter tests calibration.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep overconfidence as a failure role and calibration as an independent longitudinal evaluation method. Do not diagnose repeated forecast miscalibration from a single correct or incorrect outcome.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-41/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Overconfidence is an epistemic failure in which expressed certainty exceeds the strength of available evidence or a defensible probability judgment. One confidently wrong outcome alone does not demonstrate persistent overconfidence across comparable forecasts." }, { "role_ref": "P48-34/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "For sufficiently many relevant probability forecasts, compare probabilities with observed frequencies in suitable groups and examine calibration separately from resolution or discrimination; a proper scoring rule can assess combined forecast quality but alone does not isolate calibration, and one correct prediction is not calibration evidence." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-13", "left_role_ref": "P48-38/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-37/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Testing a mechanism against rival predictions goes beyond warning that correlation alone does not establish causation.", "counterexample": "A randomized experiment may estimate an effect without a detailed mechanistic account.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep the causal identification guardrail and mechanism testing separately reusable.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "complementary_causal_methods" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_causal_guardrail_vs_mechanism_test", "rationale": "Correlation/causation caution limits what association alone identifies, while mechanism testing evaluates a proposed process against distinctive interventions or observations. Either can be useful when the other is unavailable.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a randomized intervention with an estimated effect but no detailed mechanistic account against a plausible mechanism narrative lacking controlled outcome evidence. Neither case justifies conflating the two epistemic roles.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep the causal-inference guardrail and mechanism-evaluation method separate; indicate when causal identification is possible without a complete mechanism and when a mechanism hypothesis remains unverified.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-38/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Evaluate a proposed causal mechanism using distinguishing observations, plausible rival explanations and appropriate tests; a coherent mechanism story alone does not establish that the mechanism occurred." }, { "role_ref": "P48-37/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Observed association alone does not identify a causal effect without an adequate identification design or assumptions that address alternative causal explanations." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-14", "left_role_ref": "P48-08/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-09/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Option value concerns future available actions; reversibility concerns undoing or modifying a prior choice.", "counterexample": "A non-reversible commitment can create a tradable future option, while a reversible choice may provide little option value.", "adjudication_gate": "Retain separate policy meanings; model exercise, exit and expiry costs explicitly.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "distinct_future_choice_and_reversal" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_future_options_vs_exit_policy", "rationale": "Option value concerns the feasibility and value of future choices, including rights that may expire; reversibility concerns the cost and completeness of undoing a prior commitment. A choice can be available even after irreversible past expenditure.", "discriminating_review_test": "Use a paid but nonrefundable license giving an exercisable expansion right, compared with a readily cancellable decision that offers no attractive future alternative. Separately measure the option set and unwind cost.", "proposed_resolution": "Retain the future-option valuation and reversible commitment policies independently. Add a conditional relation only when retaining an exit genuinely preserves a feasible future choice.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-08/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Evaluate the cost-adjusted value of preserving feasible future choices under uncertainty, including contractual rights and practical opportunities; account for acquisition, carrying, exercise, and expiry costs when relevant, and distinguish keeping a choice available from exercising it or reversing an earlier commitment." }, { "role_ref": "P48-09/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When reversal is difficult or uncertainty material, prefer feasible staged commitments, exit conditions, or replaceable choices where the value of flexibility exceeds their costs." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-15", "left_role_ref": "P48-04/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-05/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Margin-of-safety uncertainty estimation and ruin-path scenario construction both model downside, but have different thresholds and horizons.", "counterexample": "A high-load estimate can justify a buffer without implying a credible insolvency scenario.", "adjudication_gate": "Compare which method provides independent adverse-path evidence; do not equate buffers with ruin avoidance.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "related_but_distinct_uncertainty_methods" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_load_estimation_vs_ruin_scenarios", "rationale": "Estimating variability to set an operating buffer addresses plausible load excursions; modeling an unrecoverable ruin path checks survival thresholds and adverse propagation. They can use similar uncertainty inputs but have different outcomes.", "discriminating_review_test": "Estimate peak warehouse demand for capacity slack where service disruption is recoverable. Contrast a liability chain that breaches insolvency threshold despite apparently adequate demand buffer.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep buffer-uncertainty assessment and ruin-path modeling separate. Shared loss distributions may be referenced, but require an actual irreversible threshold before mapping to ruin analysis.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-04/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "An estimate may omit or misestimate important load conditions." }, { "role_ref": "P48-05/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Given a ruin threshold and horizon, construct credible severe-loss paths, examine dependence and tail scenarios, and assess whether those paths could exceed the survival limit while identifying uncertainty and omitted scenarios." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-16", "left_role_ref": "P48-04/D2", "right_role_ref": "P48-07/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Alternative protection versus direct position sizing both reduce downside exposure, but one surveys the menu of protections and the other sets position magnitude.", "counterexample": "Buying insurance with unchanged position size can alter downside without resizing the position.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep two scoped policies; link an allocation method only when the decision variable and loss constraint match.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "overlapping_exposure_control" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_protection_menu_vs_exposure_sizing", "rationale": "A protection-choice role compares hedges, insurance, diversification or other mitigations; position sizing changes a quantity of direct exposure against a budget. Their decision variables and costs can differ even for the same tail loss.", "discriminating_review_test": "Hold position quantity fixed while adding insurance and compare resulting worst-case loss with a second plan that changes the position quantity without insurance. Record different controls and residual risks.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve both scoped Decision roles, considering a relation only when the loss budget, covered horizon, and available adjustment variables are common. Do not equate insurance purchase with resizing.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-04/D2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When additional slack would displace essential commitments, compare exposure reduction, alternative protections, or reduced activity instead." }, { "role_ref": "P48-07/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Size a position so its adverse outcomes fit a stated risk budget." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-17", "left_role_ref": "P48-08/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-10/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "An optionality policy evaluates the future choice menu, while staging is one method of sequencing commitment.", "counterexample": "Retaining an unused contractual right creates option value even with no staged implementation.", "adjudication_gate": "Do not reuse the staged commitment policy as the entire optionality valuation.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "option_valuation_vs_staging_policy" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_option_valuation_vs_staging", "rationale": "Optionality evaluates the continuing menu of future feasible actions and their costs; staged commitment is one way to control when exposure occurs. Valuable contractual alternatives may exist without any staged implementation.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare an immediately paid license with a valuable later exercise right against a multi-stage deployment that contractually eliminates every alternative after its first stage.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep broad future-choice valuation distinct from staged commitment. Relate them when stage gates actually preserve a meaningful future action rather than merely postpone expenditure.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-08/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Evaluate the cost-adjusted value of preserving feasible future choices under uncertainty, including contractual rights and practical opportunities; account for acquisition, carrying, exercise, and expiry costs when relevant, and distinguish keeping a choice available from exercising it or reversing an earlier commitment." }, { "role_ref": "P48-10/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Sequence commitments in bounded stages where partial investment is feasible." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-18", "left_role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-36/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Comparing rival hypotheses and seeking potentially refuting evidence can interact but are distinct procedures.", "adjudication_gate": "Allow cross-method reference without treating disconfirmation as synonymous with formal alternatives.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "hypothesis_comparison_vs_disconfirmation" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_methods_pending_protocol", "rationale": "Testing competing explanatory hypotheses and actively seeking disconfirming observations have different necessary steps, although they can be combined.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a rival-explanation test relying on preexisting discriminating data against a single-hypothesis disconfirmation search without enumerated rivals.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep methods provisionally distinct; a shared evidence step alone does not justify a whole-role merge.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_without_primary_evidence", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare rival explanations using evidence that can distinguish their predictions." }, { "role_ref": "P48-36/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Deliberately search for observations that would count against a favored explanation even when no formal comparison set is defined." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-19", "left_role_ref": "P48-42/E2", "right_role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Frame-invariance checking holds outcomes constant across formulations; confirmation-bias correction evaluates a serious rival explanation.", "adjudication_gate": "Preserve different experimental manipulations and measurable failure criteria.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "distinct_bias_correctives" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_corrective_methods_pending_protocol", "rationale": "Framing E2 holds material facts fixed across equivalent presentations; confirmation-bias E2 tests conclusions against rivals or contrary evidence.", "discriminating_review_test": "Apply both checks to the same case with presentation-only sensitivity but no prior preferred hypothesis, then to belief-confirming evidence under stable framing.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep corrective procedures separately scoped while the overlap of evaluation techniques remains a relation candidate.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-42/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare materially equivalent descriptions using the same outcome, baseline, and probability representations before relying on a framing-sensitive judgment." }, { "role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare a serious rival explanation using the same stated evidence standards." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-20", "left_role_ref": "P48-31/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-32/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Signal discrimination identifies informative patterns; sampling evaluation tests representativeness, dependence and effective sample size.", "counterexample": "Large precise measurements from a biased sample can have strong signal and still fail population inference.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep separate evidence quality gates and do not reduce sampling to noise measurement.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "signal_quality_vs_sampling_quality" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_relevance_vs_sampling_validity", "rationale": "Signal/noise discrimination asks which observed variation carries task-relevant information; sampling validity checks selection, dependence, coverage and inference to a target population. A precise measurement can still be unrepresentative.", "discriminating_review_test": "Use a low-noise sensor measuring a self-selected user cohort and show high measurement precision but poor representativeness for the target population. Compare with a noisy random sample that can support less biased inference.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve separate evidence-quality methods. A sample-size or selection check must not be satisfied merely by strong within-sample signal; noise reduction alone is not population validity.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-31/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Define the task-relevant signal as evidence that discriminates a specified state or hypothesis, estimate nuisance variation and measurement noise, and check whether an observed pattern remains informative under suitable comparisons." }, { "role_ref": "P48-32/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Before generalizing, evaluate the sampling frame, relevance to the target population, selection bias, dependence among observations, and effective sample size relative to the uncertainty of the estimate; a large biased sample does not repair representativeness." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-21", "left_role_ref": "P48-33/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-34/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Bayesian updating changes beliefs under assumptions, whereas calibration checks forecast frequencies and confidence.", "counterexample": "A model can update exactly using incorrect likelihood assumptions and remain systematically miscalibrated.", "adjudication_gate": "Retain different inputs and output checks; neither role validates the other automatically.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "updating_vs_calibration_assessment" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_posterior_update_vs_calibration", "rationale": "Bayesian updating changes uncertainty under priors and conditional likelihoods; calibration checks whether expressed forecast probabilities agree with observed frequencies. Formally valid updates do not guarantee the model is empirically calibrated.", "discriminating_review_test": "Update a prior using a systematically wrong likelihood function over many cases; compare internally consistent posteriors with repeatedly inaccurate event probabilities. Track calibration separately from update arithmetic.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep the probabilistic-update method separate from the forecast-calibration assessment. Require outcome records and appropriate grouping before claiming calibration even after mathematically correct updating.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-33/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Update uncertain beliefs using a stated prior and the likelihood of observed evidence under a model; account for dependence among observations and model uncertainty rather than repeatedly counting correlated evidence as independent." }, { "role_ref": "P48-34/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "For sufficiently many relevant probability forecasts, compare probabilities with observed frequencies in suitable groups and examine calibration separately from resolution or discrimination; a proper scoring rule can assess combined forecast quality but alone does not isolate calibration, and one correct prediction is not calibration evidence." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-22", "left_role_ref": "P48-27/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Skin in the Game describes allocation of decision authority and exposure; incentive response describes behavioral adaptation.", "counterexample": "An actor can bear the consequences and still fail to adapt because of ignorance or constraints.", "adjudication_gate": "Separate exposure arrangement from behavior response; evidence of one does not prove the other.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "exposure_structure_vs_response_mechanism" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_exposure_arrangement_vs_adaptive_response", "rationale": "Bearing consequences describes who has control and experiences gains or losses; incentive responsiveness is the behavior changing in light of anticipated consequences. Exposure can exist without awareness, capacity or behavioral change.", "discriminating_review_test": "Give an agent real financial downside but no information about its actions' consequences, or no ability to change the action. Show consequence exposure without a corresponding adaptation to incentives.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep structural consequence exposure and general adaptive response as different roles. Treat motivation or incentive effects as an empirical condition, not a conclusion guaranteed by skin in the game.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-27/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Decision authority and exposure to consequences can be distributed differently: an actor influencing an outcome may bear the resulting upside or downside, or may shift costs onto others. This structural arrangement does not by itself establish changed behavior, sound judgment, or just incentives." }, { "role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Agents may adjust actions in response to perceived rewards, penalties, control rights, and constraints; perceived incentives need not match stated objectives or actual consequences." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-23", "left_role_ref": "P48-28/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-29/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Seeking jointly beneficial repeated arrangements is a policy; reciprocity is a descriptive contingent response to past acts.", "counterexample": "Reciprocal retaliation can be destructive even when a mutually beneficial bargain exists.", "adjudication_gate": "Preserve normative objective and behavioral mechanism as separate contributions.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "policy_vs_reciprocity_mechanism" }, "editorial_disposition": "normative_cooperation_vs_descriptive_reciprocity", "rationale": "Choosing jointly valuable recurring cooperation is a normative strategy with feasible mutual gains; reciprocity explains contingent responses to previous conduct, which can perpetuate retaliation or unproductive norms.", "discriminating_review_test": "Construct a repeated interaction with available positive-sum cooperation but entrenched retaliatory responses that destroy value; contrast a cooperative arrangement not depending on reciprocating the previous move.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep Decision cooperation design distinct from Ontological reciprocity. Add a mechanism-to-policy link only where reciprocal expectations actually support the proposed mutual-gain arrangement.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-28/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Before preferring a win-win arrangement to a win-lose alternative over repeated interactions, compare expected joint value, distribution of gains, credibility of cooperation, defection risk, and time horizon under the stated objective." }, { "role_ref": "P48-29/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "In repeated interactions, an actor may condition current cooperation or defection on a counterpart's observed previous behavior and expected future encounters; this contingent response is reciprocity, not merely a change in incentives from experience." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-24", "left_role_ref": "P48-46/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-30/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Legibility-driven institutional action is an ontological feedback phenomenon; map/territory is a general representation warning.", "counterexample": "A category can exclude citizens from a benefit through a policy even if administrators understand the category is incomplete.", "adjudication_gate": "Do not merge cross-stack effects merely because both mention imperfect formal representations.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "institutional_behavior_vs_model_warning" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_institutional_effect_vs_model_limit", "rationale": "Institutional legibility concerns formal records or categories that can directly govern access and behavior; map-versus-territory is the broader epistemic warning that representations omit relevant reality. Causal administration goes beyond recognition of approximation.", "discriminating_review_test": "Model a benefit application where a form category determines eligibility even when administrators know it is incomplete. Contrast an inaccurate scientific map causing no administrative allocation rule.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep the institutional consequence mechanism and general representation-limit guardrail independently scoped. Do not infer intentional metric gaming from the mere existence of consequential classifications.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-46/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When institutions act on simplified categories or recorded indicators, eligibility, resources, and behavior may change even though the categories omit relevant features of people or situations." }, { "role_ref": "P48-30/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A representation supports conclusions only within the aspects and conditions it represents adequately for the intended purpose; omitted features can limit its applicability without making every simplification defective." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-25", "left_role_ref": "P48-20/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-24/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Individual outcome feedback and population selection over variants are different adjustment mechanisms.", "counterexample": "Variation can be selected by an environment without any agent observing outcomes or learning.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep the unit of analysis, information flow and selection process distinct.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "feedback_vs_variation_selection" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_feedback_learning_vs_population_selection", "rationale": "Feedback adjustment involves outcomes influencing later behavior or control choices; variation and selection explain differential persistence of variants, which can occur with no actor noticing or learning from results.", "discriminating_review_test": "Set up environmental selection among fixed, unlearning variants; then contrast one adaptive controller changing behavior using observed error. Identify the adapting unit and information pathway.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve agent-level feedback and population-level selection as separate mechanisms. Link only where outcome signals actually modify a selection or control process and state the level of analysis.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-20/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Feedback from observations may adjust future behavior; useful adaptation depends on signal quality, delay and system response." }, { "role_ref": "P48-24/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Populations generate or contain variants; environmental conditions can differentially preserve them, changing trait distributions across repeated selection. This mechanism does not necessarily improve fitness or serve a goal." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-26", "left_role_ref": "P48-40/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-39/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Motivated reasoning privileges desired conclusions while confirmation bias privileges existing beliefs.", "counterexample": "Someone may wish a disliked, implausible proposition to be true without previously believing it.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep motivation and belief-congruence as separable causal conditions.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "distinct_bias_drivers" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_prior_belief_vs_desired_conclusion_bias", "rationale": "Confirmation bias favors evidence supporting an existing belief; motivated reasoning favors a desired conclusion regardless of whether it is currently believed. They may align in a given case, but the causal triggers differ.", "discriminating_review_test": "Ask someone who strongly wants a proposition to be true while privately believing it false, and inspect unequal evaluation of supportive evidence. This tests desire influence without prior-belief confirmation.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve two candidate cognitive failure roles. A common corrective method may be shared later, but do not merge their explanatory identities based solely on similar selective evidence symptoms.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r23-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-40/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Desired conclusions can lead to unequal scrutiny or interpretation of favorable and unfavorable evidence, distorting an inference." }, { "role_ref": "P48-39/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Belief-driven unequal scrutiny of confirming and conflicting evidence can distort an inference." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-27", "left_role_ref": "P48-17/O1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Conditional reputation compounding requires base-dependent growth; maintained trust O1 only describes credible cooperative expectations.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep P48-17/O1 held, and do not repurpose Trust/O1 as evidence of compounding.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "held_reputation_vs_trust" }, "editorial_disposition": "preserve_held_inactive_unsupported_growth", "rationale": "Maintained trust O1 describes credible cooperative expectations, which does not imply reputation's positive base-dependent growth mechanism.", "discriminating_review_test": "Contrast stable reciprocal trust without increasing net reputation growth against an independently identified base-dependent reputation feedback cycle.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-17/O1 held; do not use Trust/O1 as substitute proof of compounding. Reactivation requires observed positive base-dependent net growth and a separate role scope, not credible reputation history alone.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_held_role_and_maintained_card_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-17/O1", "record_kind": "held_proposal", "current_summary": "Reputation can compound if retained credible conduct increases a reputation base and the resulting opportunities generate further positive net reputation gains that depend on that base; otherwise it may merely accumulate, stagnate, or decay." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/O1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "Credible expectations about another party can support willingness to cooperate." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-28", "left_role_ref": "P48-28/D1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Maintained trust D1 concerns reliable commitments with safeguards; P48-28/D1 chooses mutually beneficial structures under expected gains and defection risk.", "counterexample": "A verifiable trustworthy partnership may still be economically zero-sum or unfavorable to one side.", "adjudication_gate": "Do not silently transfer the trust-safeguard policy into joint-value optimization.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "trust_safeguards_vs_joint_value_design" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_mutual_surplus_from_commitment_safeguards", "rationale": "Two reliable parties can sign enforceable contracts without creating mutual economic surplus. Trust safeguards concern performance risk; P48-28/D1 compares potential joint gains after costs.", "discriminating_review_test": "Take reliable parties offered a contract: buyer values output at $80 but pays $100. Compare enforceability against each participant's net surplus; the reliable exchange can still fail the mutual-gain test.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-28/D1 joint-value design separate from QE-EX-TRUST/D1 safeguards. Require credible performance and positive participant gains independently.", "case_test_anchors": [ "$80", "$100" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-28/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Before preferring a win-win arrangement to a win-lose alternative over repeated interactions, compare expected joint value, distribution of gains, credibility of cooperation, defection risk, and time horizon under the stated objective." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/D1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "Develop reliable commitments while preserving proportionate verification and safeguards." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R18C-29", "left_role_ref": "P48-29/O1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Trust concerns confidence in cooperation; reciprocity conditions behavior on earlier observed actions in repeated interactions.", "counterexample": "A retaliatory tit-for-tat pattern can continue even when neither actor trusts the other.", "adjudication_gate": "Retain reciprocity as a distinct explanatory process and compare scope explicitly.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "reciprocity_vs_credible_expectations" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_repeated_reciprocity_from_trust", "rationale": "Reciprocal retaliation can persist across repeated interactions despite both parties lacking confidence in cooperation. Trust expectations are neither necessary nor sufficient for conditional tit-for-tat responses.", "discriminating_review_test": "Watch two distrustful contractors exchange penalties after perceived breaches. Test whether retaliation continues even when neither expects cooperation; then evaluate trust separately with third-party references.", "proposed_resolution": "Retain P48-29/O1 for behavior conditional on interaction history, separate from QE-EX-TRUST/O1 credible cooperation expectations.", "case_test_anchors": [ "distrustful", "penalties" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-29/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "In repeated interactions, an actor may condition current cooperation or defection on a counterpart's observed previous behavior and expected future encounters; this contingent response is reciprocity, not merely a change in incentives from experience." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/O1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "Credible expectations about another party can support willingness to cooperate." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-30", "left_role_ref": "P48-01/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-02/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Opportunity cost requires a feasible choice and foregone best alternative; scarcity is a binding condition without necessarily establishing a selected alternative.", "counterexample": "A scarce resource can face an unavoidable single use without any genuine opportunity to choose.", "adjudication_gate": "Test a shared feasible choice and comparator before saying both refer to one mechanism.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_scarcity_from_choice_opportunity_cost", "rationale": "Scarcity is a limit on feasible resources; opportunity cost is the best forgone feasible alternative to a selected choice. A mandatory single use creates a constraint without a meaningful alternative.", "discriminating_review_test": "One oxygen cylinder has one medically permitted use. Compare with a second ward where two feasible patients could receive it; only the second choice admits a displaced feasible alternative.", "proposed_resolution": "Retain P48-02/O1 scarcity and P48-01/O1 opportunity-cost comparison separately. Connect only when competing feasible choices actually exist.", "case_test_anchors": [ "oxygen cylinder", "two feasible patients" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-01/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Choosing a feasible use of scarce resources entails foregoing the value of the highest-valued feasible alternative not chosen, relative to the same objective; other forgone options exist but do not each define the opportunity cost." }, { "role_ref": "P48-02/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Where finite resources, incompatible requirements, or binding constraints make alternatives mutually exclusive, advancing one feasible objective entails foregoing another; changing constraints, technology or coordination may remove a particular trade-off, so unavoidability is conditional." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-31", "left_role_ref": "P48-01/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-14/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Opportunity-cost allocation applies broadly, whereas comparative advantage requires relative production costs across agents and activities.", "counterexample": "One actor choosing leisure rather than work need not have feasible exchange or specialization.", "adjudication_gate": "Check opportunity-cost comparator, objective and exchange feasibility before considering reuse.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "general_opportunity_cost_vs_relative_specialization", "rationale": "A single decision maker may weigh foregone alternatives without comparative advantage. Comparative advantage compares opportunity costs of specified production activities between agents with feasible specialization.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a freelancer choosing rest versus work with two producers exchanging textiles and food at different relative costs. Test whether a second producer and exchange are necessary before invoking comparative advantage.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-01/D1 general allocation separate from P48-14/D1 comparative specialization, even when a relative-cost calculation uses opportunity cost.", "case_test_anchors": [ "freelancer", "two producers" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-01/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare a feasible choice with what its best displaced alternative could have achieved under the same objective." }, { "role_ref": "P48-14/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Consider specializing in an activity with lower relative opportunity cost when exchange, coordination, and other constraints allow net gains relative to feasible alternatives." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-32", "left_role_ref": "P48-04/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-05/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Margin buffers against load uncertainty; ruin avoidance rejects situations breaching an irrecoverable survival threshold.", "counterexample": "A reversible quality defect can justify extra slack without placing essential continuity at risk.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep ordinary buffer choice distinct from a survival constraint unless explicitly linked.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "ordinary_buffer_vs_irrecoverable_ruin_boundary", "rationale": "A margin can protect against reversible fluctuations even without a survival-risk threshold. Ruin avoidance constrains outcomes that would irreversibly destroy the objective.", "discriminating_review_test": "A warehouse handles late shipments with extra slack. Contrast routine delays with a cash insolvency scenario threatening business survival; assess slack and ruin floor independently.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-04/D1 buffer design separate from P48-05/D1 survival limit, relating them only where a buffer actually reduces a specified ruin risk.", "case_test_anchors": [ "warehouse", "insolvency" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-04/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Evaluate a feasible buffer against unacceptable loss and the opportunity cost of slack." }, { "role_ref": "P48-05/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Define a ruin threshold in terms of unrecoverable loss of solvency, continuity, or essential capabilities and a relevant time horizon; before seeking upside, reject or limit exposure when credible adverse scenarios exceed the chosen survival constraint." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-33", "left_role_ref": "P48-05/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-07/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Ruin avoidance sets an unacceptable survival event, while position sizing limits adjustable exposure under a risk budget.", "counterexample": "An unavoidable contractual obligation can cause ruin even though there is no position to resize.", "adjudication_gate": "Separate policy owner of survival criteria from one implementation of exposure controls.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "survival_limit_vs_resizable_exposure", "rationale": "Avoiding ruin concerns whether an unacceptable loss is allowed; position sizing controls an adjustable amount of exposure. Some ruin-producing obligations cannot be resized.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a company facing a fixed court judgment above available cash with an investor reducing a futures position. The fixed obligation violates a survival floor without any adjustable position.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-05/D1 survival criterion distinct from P48-07/D1 exposure sizing. Size can implement a safety bound when the exposure is adjustable.", "case_test_anchors": [ "court judgment", "futures position" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-05/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Define a ruin threshold in terms of unrecoverable loss of solvency, continuity, or essential capabilities and a relevant time horizon; before seeking upside, reject or limit exposure when credible adverse scenarios exceed the chosen survival constraint." }, { "role_ref": "P48-07/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Size a position so its adverse outcomes fit a stated risk budget." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-34", "left_role_ref": "P48-06/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-07/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Payoff asymmetry concerns the distribution and desirability of outcomes, whereas sizing determines how much exposure to accept.", "counterexample": "A skew-positive opportunity may be dangerously oversized; a necessary hedge may have unfavorable skew.", "adjudication_gate": "Do not merge quality assessment with position limits without identical risk objective.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "payoff_asymmetry_vs_portfolio_position_size", "rationale": "The payoff distribution of a choice remains structurally the same when its quantity changes, while the portfolio's exposure to that distribution changes materially.", "discriminating_review_test": "A venture bet offers 20x on success but at full allocation risks a 40% portfolio loss. Reduce it to 1% and check whether payoff shape changes versus risk-budget consumption.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-06/D1 payoff screening separate from P48-07/D1 size under a risk budget; favorable skew never automatically licenses a large position.", "case_test_anchors": [ "20x", "40%", "1%" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-06/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare downside scale, upside possibilities and probabilities before accepting exposure." }, { "role_ref": "P48-07/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Size a position so its adverse outcomes fit a stated risk budget." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-35", "left_role_ref": "P48-15/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-20/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Compounding requires base-dependent positive net gains, while feedback is information affecting subsequent adjustment.", "counterexample": "A thermostat can use feedback without accumulating gains in a growing positive base.", "adjudication_gate": "Require retained positive growth mechanism rather than treating any feedback as compounding.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "base_dependent_compounding_vs_feedback_adjustment", "rationale": "Feedback uses observations to adjust later behavior, but can stabilize a variable without retained positive base-dependent growth. Compounding requires an actual retained growing base.", "discriminating_review_test": "A thermostat adjusts heat to keep a room at 21°C. Compare with a growing capital base earning proportional net returns. The feedback controller does not itself compound the temperature.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve P48-15/O1 conditional base-dependent growth distinct from P48-20/O1 feedback adjustment; connect only when feedback causes retained positive growth.", "case_test_anchors": [ "thermostat", "21°C" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-15/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Across successive intervals, small retained gains compound only if the accumulated positive base increases and subsequent positive net increments depend on that base; independent fixed gains merely add." }, { "role_ref": "P48-20/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Feedback from observations may adjust future behavior; useful adaptation depends on signal quality, delay and system response." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-36", "left_role_ref": "P48-19/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Culture may drift because of turnover and imitation, while incentive response is one narrower behavioral channel.", "counterexample": "New staff may shift informal norms even when material incentives have not changed.", "adjudication_gate": "Do not identify every group-level norm shift as the same incentive response.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "norm_drift_from_turnover_vs_reward_response", "rationale": "Culture can change because membership or imitation changes even when formal incentives do not. Incentive responses may also occur without durable collective norm change.", "discriminating_review_test": "Senior engineers retire, new members alter meeting norms, but pay rules stay fixed. Contrast a new bonus changing output while shared norms remain stable; isolate the causal channels.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-19/O1 group-level cultural dynamics separate from P48-26/O1 perceived incentive adaptation; do not infer rewards from every norm shift.", "case_test_anchors": [ "engineers retire", "meeting norms" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-19/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When organizational norms are not deliberately maintained or checked, turnover, informal imitation, incentives, and changing conditions can shift actual behavior away from intended norms; drift is conditional and need not be deterioration." }, { "role_ref": "P48-26/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Agents may adjust actions in response to perceived rewards, penalties, control rights, and constraints; perceived incentives need not match stated objectives or actual consequences." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-37", "left_role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "right_role_ref": "P48-36/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Consistent standards for rival explanations differ from actively searching for disconfirming observations.", "adjudication_gate": "Compare their necessary method steps and stopping criteria before assigning shared ownership.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_methods_pending_protocol", "rationale": "Evidentially comparing rival hypotheses and collecting disconfirming evidence may share examples but are not identical operations.", "discriminating_review_test": "Show one comparison across rival explanations with no new disconfirming observation and one disconfirmation test against a sole hypothesis.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-39/E2 and P48-36/E1 distinct on candidate procedures; recheck fixture-specific ownership in final normalization.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-39/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare a serious rival explanation using the same stated evidence standards." }, { "role_ref": "P48-36/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Deliberately search for observations that would count against a favored explanation even when no formal comparison set is defined." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-38", "left_role_ref": "P48-41/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-39/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Overconfidence concerns unwarranted certainty; confirmation bias concerns disproportionate weight on belief-consistent evidence.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep failure-mode concepts separate unless a mechanism makes them equivalent.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_failure_modes_candidate", "rationale": "Overconfidence is excessive certainty given evidence or predictive accuracy; confirmation bias is asymmetric treatment of belief-consistent evidence.", "discriminating_review_test": "Test confidently wrong assessment with equal evidence treatment, and selective evidence treatment without expressed certainty.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep two descriptive failure modes; do not infer one from the other. Apply tests distinguishing excessive certainty from belief-congruent evidence weighting before any proposed normalization.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-41/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Overconfidence is an epistemic failure in which expressed certainty exceeds the strength of available evidence or a defensible probability judgment. One confidently wrong outcome alone does not demonstrate persistent overconfidence across comparable forecasts." }, { "role_ref": "P48-39/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Belief-driven unequal scrutiny of confirming and conflicting evidence can distort an inference." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-39", "left_role_ref": "P48-43/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Perspective-taking examines legitimate stakeholder viewpoints; hypothesis testing compares competing explanatory predictions.", "counterexample": "Two people may hold identical causal models yet seek different legitimate outcomes.", "adjudication_gate": "Distinguish social perspective differences from uncertainty about explanation.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "different_stakeholder_goals_vs_rival_causal_models", "rationale": "Perspective-taking compares legitimate interests and available viewpoints; rival-hypothesis testing separates incompatible explanatory predictions. Value conflict can persist with full factual agreement.", "discriminating_review_test": "Two commuters agree a toll reduces traffic, yet differ over equity for low-income drivers. Contrast this preference conflict with rival forecasts predicting opposite traffic outcomes.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-43/E1 perspective-taking distinct from P48-35/E1 alternative-hypothesis comparison; study stakeholder goals separately from causal uncertainty.", "case_test_anchors": [ "commuters", "toll", "equity" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-43/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare relevant stakeholders' information, incentives, and rival interpretations; validate the perspectives against available evidence rather than assuming that empathy or perspective-taking guarantees accuracy." }, { "role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare rival explanations using evidence that can distinguish their predictions." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-40", "left_role_ref": "P48-45/D1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Metric governance checks proxy divergence, whereas reward design evaluates whether rules incentivize intended contributions.", "counterexample": "A reporting metric can mislead without any financial or social reward rule change.", "adjudication_gate": "Check control authority and the intervention itself before claiming the same policy.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "proxy_metric_governance_vs_reward_rule_design", "rationale": "Metric governance can detect invalid performance proxies in the absence of any reward rule. Reward design changes incentives and may or may not use the same metric.", "discriminating_review_test": "A hospital dashboard counts procedures while patient outcomes decline; compensation stays fixed. Test indicator validity separately from changing a reward contract and verifying behavior change.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-45/D1 metric governance distinct from QE-EX-INCENTIVES/D1 reward design; relate them only if incentives on the proxy actually drive behavior.", "case_test_anchors": [ "hospital dashboard", "compensation" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-45/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Use the specified independent-outcome comparison before relying on a consequential proxy to change rewards; do not treat it as completed when its required observation is unavailable." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES/D1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "Test whether the reward rule favors the intended contribution rather than a convenient proxy." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-41", "left_role_ref": "P48-48/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-42/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Individual response to a narrative can change attention and planned conduct without a demonstrable invariance failure between materially equivalent frames; P48-42/O1 is specifically presentation-dependent judgment.", "adjudication_gate": "Test one individual's story-induced change of behavior separately from the same individual's evaluation under equivalent alternative frames. Do not claim a collective coordination mechanism absent from P48-48/O1.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_individual_level_mechanisms_candidate", "rationale": "Narrative influence can change an individual's behavior without materially equivalent frame comparison; framing bias requires invariance failure across alternative representations.", "discriminating_review_test": "Test one individual's narrative-triggered change of attention or behavior while their judgment remains stable under equivalent alternative frames. Do not infer group coordination from this individual-scoped role.", "proposed_resolution": "Retain separate individual-level candidates; never infer collective dynamics from the current narrative role.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_without_primary_evidence", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-48/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A narrative interpreted by an individual can change that person's attention, expectations, choices or conduct; this contribution does not by itself establish an additional group-coordination mechanism." }, { "role_ref": "P48-42/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Choices and judgments can vary with presentation even when the relevant underlying facts are comparable." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-42", "left_role_ref": "P48-47/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-23/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Minimal sufficient complexity defines an adequacy principle, while modularization introduces interface boundaries for isolation.", "counterexample": "A safety-critical modular architecture can require more parts than the simplest monolithic structure.", "adjudication_gate": "Compare objectives and costs rather than inferring policy identity from engineering simplicity.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "minimal_adequate_complexity_vs_modular_containment", "rationale": "Modularization adds interfaces to contain failures; minimal sufficient complexity selects an adequate design under required reliability. More components can be justified when risk is lowered.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a monolithic controller that passes routine load tests but cascades during failure to a segmented controller with isolation valves. Test safety and propagation rather than counting parts.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-47/D1 minimal-adequate design distinct from P48-23/D1 conditional modular isolation; judge adequacy under explicit safety constraints.", "case_test_anchors": [ "monolithic controller", "isolation valves" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-47/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Prefer the least complex design adequate for required safety, reliability and objectives." }, { "role_ref": "P48-23/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Choose modular boundaries when containment and independent changes justify interface costs." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-43", "left_role_ref": "P48-46/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-45/O2", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Institutional categories may causally change eligibility or behavior, whereas metric proxies can reward the wrong performance target.", "counterexample": "Recorded eligibility categories may control benefits without acting as a target or a reward proxy.", "adjudication_gate": "Keep institutional representation effects separate from latent reward/proxy misalignment.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "administrative_category_consequences_vs_target_gaming", "rationale": "Institutional classifications can determine entitlements without reward-target optimization. Metric gaming requires consequential performance targets or incentives that redirect effort.", "discriminating_review_test": "A housing-assistance applicant loses eligibility because a form category omits their living situation; contrast staff reclassifying files to hit a bonus target. Isolate rule effects from gaming.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-46/O1 institutional-category effects separate from P48-45/O2 metric-target response, relating them only when records are actually optimization targets.", "case_test_anchors": [ "housing-assistance", "bonus target" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-46/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When institutions act on simplified categories or recorded indicators, eligibility, resources, and behavior may change even though the categories omit relevant features of people or situations." }, { "role_ref": "P48-45/O2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A proxy can reward behavior that differs from the intended service outcome." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-44", "left_role_ref": "P48-03/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-13/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Throughput capacity is a structural constraint; selecting a resource intervention is a separate decision policy.", "counterexample": "A bottleneck may be known but intervention prohibited by other practical limits.", "adjudication_gate": "Verify P48-03/O1 by an observed limiting stage and stated throughput model; verify P48-13/D1 by a feasible intervention on a binding constraint and an objective. A bottleneck with no permitted intervention supports the former, not the latter.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_structure_vs_intervention", "rationale": "A throughput-limiting stage is a structural capacity constraint even when the operator lacks authority to change it; prioritizing interventions is a different conditional policy with feasible alternatives and a specified objective.", "discriminating_review_test": "Model a capped production flow with an observed bottleneck but a regulatory prohibition on altering the stage. Record P48-03/O1 as potentially applicable, P48-13/D1 as inapplicable without an actionable choice.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep O1 structural capacity and D1 constraint-prioritization as separate candidate ownership; relate mechanism to intervention only in contexts allowing an effective intervention.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-03/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Under a stated flow model, a binding stage can cap achievable system throughput." }, { "role_ref": "P48-13/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Prioritize interventions addressing an identified binding constraint under a stated objective, including constraints outside flow throughput." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-45", "left_role_ref": "P48-03/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-13/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Observed-flow diagnosis is a knowledge method, not automatically an instruction to act.", "counterexample": "The limiting stage can be diagnosed even when no feasible intervention exists.", "adjudication_gate": "Require P48-03/E1 to name discriminating throughput observations and rival bottleneck hypotheses. Require P48-13/D1 to prescribe a feasible constraint-directed action; diagnosis can be sound while no action is available.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "diagnosis_before_action_not_same_role", "rationale": "Flow measurements and rival bottleneck explanations are inputs to a diagnosis; they do not by themselves prescribe spending, staffing or redesign of the constrained stage.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a stable throughput trace identifying the bottleneck with a second scenario offering two viable interventions with different downstream consequences. Evaluate diagnostic evidence separately from the chosen action.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-03/E1 as an evidence-based bottleneck diagnosis and P48-13/D1 as an objective-and-feasibility decision policy; no role-equivalence approval.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-03/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Identify which stage is actually constraining throughput using observed flows and plausible alternatives." }, { "role_ref": "P48-13/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Prioritize interventions addressing an identified binding constraint under a stated objective, including constraints outside flow throughput." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-46", "left_role_ref": "P48-04/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-06/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Variable loads describe engineering uncertainty; asymmetric payoffs describe uncertain return shape.", "counterexample": "A bridge bears variable loads without representing an investment with upside skew.", "adjudication_gate": "For P48-04/O1 identify variable operational loads independent of any investment return. For P48-06/O1 require a specified distribution of opportunity outcomes with asymmetric upside/downside; variable bridge loads alone do not establish payoff skew.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "different_structural_uncertainties", "rationale": "Uncertain physical load magnitudes can demand a structural buffer without defining any skewed investment payoff distribution or upside-versus-downside attractiveness criterion.", "discriminating_review_test": "Use bridge load variation with no economic return decision, then a capped-loss asymmetric investment return distribution with no mechanical-load system. Identify which structural proposition each supports.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep physical variability and favorable payoff asymmetry as distinct Ontological candidates, conditioned on the system and distribution; avoid importing financial claims into load engineering.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-04/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "The relevant load can vary across situations." }, { "role_ref": "P48-06/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A particular opportunity can have an asymmetric payoff distribution with limited or specified downside and potentially larger upside under stated scenarios; calling it favorable requires assessing magnitudes and likelihoods, and skew alone does not establish positive expected value." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-47", "left_role_ref": "P48-06/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-05/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Payoff asymmetry is a descriptive distribution; ruin-tail scenario testing is an epistemic assessment.", "counterexample": "A limited-risk asymmetrical opportunity may have no meaningful ruin tail to examine.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-06/O1 requires an upside/downside payoff distribution with specified asymmetry; P48-05/E1 requires a chosen ruin threshold, time horizon and credible severe-loss paths. An asymmetrical opportunity with bounded downside need not trigger a ruin-path analysis.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "payoff_shape_vs_ruin_diagnosis", "rationale": "Payoff asymmetry describes uncertain upside/downside geometry; ruin testing requires a separately specified irrecoverable-loss threshold, horizon, and a plausible severe-loss path to that threshold.", "discriminating_review_test": "Provide a bounded-downside opportunity with strong positive skew and no ruin risk, then an adverse path crossing a capital survival threshold even with an attractive payoff distribution.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-06/O1 describing conditional payoff asymmetry while P48-05/E1 assesses ruin thresholds and path risk; no identification of tail shape with survival diagnosis.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-06/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A particular opportunity can have an asymmetric payoff distribution with limited or specified downside and potentially larger upside under stated scenarios; calling it favorable requires assessing magnitudes and likelihoods, and skew alone does not establish positive expected value." }, { "role_ref": "P48-05/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Given a ruin threshold and horizon, construct credible severe-loss paths, examine dependence and tail scenarios, and assess whether those paths could exceed the survival limit while identifying uncertainty and omitted scenarios." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-48", "left_role_ref": "P48-08/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-09/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Availability of future feasible choices differs from estimating costs of reversing an existing choice.", "counterexample": "An additional independent future option might not undo any earlier commitment.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-08/O1 asks what future actions remain feasible under rights, resources and expiry. P48-09/E1 estimates whether an earlier action can be reversed and at what residual cost; owning an unrelated future option proves neither reversibility nor its diagnosis.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "future_options_vs_prior_exit", "rationale": "Having feasible future alternatives can be valuable even when reversal of an earlier action is impossible; undoing a past commitment and retaining unrelated future choices are different mechanisms.", "discriminating_review_test": "Hold an irreversible contract fixed while adding independent available alternatives with expiry. Test whether P48-08/O1 changes and P48-09/E1 remains unchanged in that controlled setting.", "proposed_resolution": "Maintain P48-08/O1's contingent future option-set structure separately from P48-09/E1's reversal and residual-cost diagnosis; no merge inferred from shared flexibility vocabulary.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-08/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "The future actions genuinely available to an actor depend on existing rights, resources, contingent conditions, and expiry. State changes can create or remove feasible choices regardless of how attractive or valuable the actor considers exercising them." }, { "role_ref": "P48-09/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Assess what parts of a proposed decision can be reversed, the remaining consequences, exit costs, and uncertainty about those estimates." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-49", "left_role_ref": "P48-09/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-08/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Estimating reversal feasibility is not cost-adjusted valuation of preserving future alternatives.", "counterexample": "A costly irreversible action can still preserve unrelated, valuable choices.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-09/E1 needs a reversible-action assessment with exit costs and residual effects. P48-08/D1 needs a cost-adjusted recommendation on preserving a future choice menu; expensive irreversibility can coexist with unrelated valuable options.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "exit_cost_diagnosis_vs_option_valuation", "rationale": "A reversal-cost estimate describes undo feasibility for a specific existing decision; an optionality recommendation compares net value of preserving a future menu against its carrying cost.", "discriminating_review_test": "Use an expensive-to-exit project that still permits an unrelated low-cost option. Verify that exit assessment can remain unfavorable while option value recommends preserving the independent opportunity.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep separate E1 reversal-feasibility assessment and D1 net optionality policy, requiring explicit exit cost versus net future-choice value to distinguish their outputs.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-09/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Assess what parts of a proposed decision can be reversed, the remaining consequences, exit costs, and uncertainty about those estimates." }, { "role_ref": "P48-08/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Evaluate the cost-adjusted value of preserving feasible future choices under uncertainty, including contractual rights and practical opportunities; account for acquisition, carrying, exercise, and expiry costs when relevant, and distinguish keeping a choice available from exercising it or reversing an earlier commitment." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-50", "left_role_ref": "P48-11/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Early evidence collection to inform lock-in differs from testing explanatory rival hypotheses.", "counterexample": "A scientist may compare theories without any irreversible decision deadline.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-11/E1 requires bounded evidence gathering before an irreversible choice and a recorded change in that choice. P48-35/E1 requires discriminating predictions among rival hypotheses without a commitment deadline; an abstract theory test can satisfy only the latter.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "early_learning_vs_rival_theory_test", "rationale": "Early evidence acquisition before lock-in has timing, actionability and delay-cost requirements; comparison among rival hypotheses is a separate epistemic procedure that does not require irreversible commitment.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare experiments discriminating two theories without any commitment deadline with an early pilot that changes a locked-in procurement choice. Assess evidence and timing consequences separately.", "proposed_resolution": "Retain P48-11/E1 as a bounded pre-lock-in information-gathering method and P48-35/E1 as broader rival-hypothesis evaluation; document possible method overlap, not identity.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-11/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Before irreversible commitment, obtain decision-relevant observations through a bounded trial, direct inquiry or experiment, and record what the evidence changes." }, { "role_ref": "P48-35/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Compare rival explanations using evidence that can distinguish their predictions." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-51", "left_role_ref": "P48-12/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-13/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Value per resource is broader than relief of an identified binding constraint.", "counterexample": "A valuable high-leverage project may not affect the present throughput bottleneck.", "adjudication_gate": "For P48-12/D1 compare marginal objective value per scarce resource across candidates. For P48-13/D1 establish a presently binding constraint and a feasible intervention. A high-value opportunity with no binding-throughput relief may satisfy leverage but not constraint-first priority.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "impact_per_resource_vs_constraint_relief", "rationale": "High leverage depends on objective-adjusted marginal benefit per scarce resource, whereas constraint-first priority requires a diagnosed binding limit and an effective intervention on it.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a high-value project increasing user utility but not throughput with a less-valued intervention at a diagnosed bottleneck. Do not infer the same ranking without a specified objective.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-12/D1 and P48-13/D1 distinct candidate policies; only propose a shared owner if the actual decision variable and objective are shown to coincide.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-12/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When increments are feasible and divisible, compare their relevant marginal value per unit of a shared scarce resource and update that comparison as returns change; indivisibility, complementarities, or interacting constraints require comparing feasible bundles rather than applying a fixed ratio ranking." }, { "role_ref": "P48-13/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Prioritize interventions addressing an identified binding constraint under a stated objective, including constraints outside flow throughput." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-52", "left_role_ref": "P48-16/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-18/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Repeated practice policy is a choice, while skill decay is a descriptive time-dependent change.", "counterexample": "Some durable skills remain strong with little practice even when consistency aids other goals.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-16/D1 prescribes sustainable practice only when repeat frequency improves the chosen objective. P48-18/O1 describes atrophy of a specified unused skill. Demonstrate the practice policy can help a goal that is not skill retention, and that atrophy can occur without choosing a policy.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "practice_policy_vs_capability_atrophy", "rationale": "A regular practice schedule can be sensible for fitness or cooperation even when skill decay is not established; unused-skill atrophy can occur independently of deliberate schedule choices.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare steady exercise improving another outcome despite stable technical skills with loss of an unpracticed procedure over time. Identify policy choice versus observed decay separately.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-16/D1 as a conditional practice-frequency recommendation and P48-18/O1 as a descriptive capability-decay mechanism; do not turn atrophy into a normative schedule.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-16/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Prefer sustainable repeated effort over spikes when the task rewards regular practice." }, { "role_ref": "P48-18/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Some unused capabilities degrade over time at task-dependent rates." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-53", "left_role_ref": "P48-18/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-20/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Atrophy in unused ability can occur without feedback-driven behavioral adaptation.", "counterexample": "Unused motor skill may weaken despite absence of observed outcomes or corrective learning.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-18/O1 requires evidence that specified capability deteriorates with disuse over a stated period. P48-20/O1 requires feedback observation affecting later behavior. An unpracticed skill can decay even without observed outcomes or a closed adaptation loop.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "time_decay_vs_feedback_learning", "rationale": "Capability atrophy from disuse can occur without any observed outcome signals; feedback-driven adaptation instead requires a feedback observation that alters later behavior or control.", "discriminating_review_test": "Observe deteriorating retention during a period with no feedback, then repeated feedback changing behavior without deterioration. Require time-based decay evidence in one case and adjustment in the other.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve separate Ontological ownership for skill atrophy and feedback response, recognizing that a training system may exhibit both under different conditions.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-18/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Some unused capabilities degrade over time at task-dependent rates." }, { "role_ref": "P48-20/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Feedback from observations may adjust future behavior; useful adaptation depends on signal quality, delay and system response." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-54", "left_role_ref": "P48-22/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-23/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Tight coupling can propagate disturbances; modular boundaries may interrupt some paths.", "counterexample": "A tightly coupled pipeline can propagate an interruption even without modular interfaces. Conversely, genuinely isolated modules can stop a cross-boundary fault despite close internal coupling; nominal module names alone prove neither.", "adjudication_gate": "Compare P48-22/O1's fast coupled propagation paths, slack and synchronization with P48-23/O1's actual modular interface boundaries and hidden shared resources. Test whether isolating an interface interrupts a propagation route; modular labels alone are not evidence of isolation.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "coupling_propagation_vs_boundary_isolation", "rationale": "Tight coupling concerns propagation speed, slack and synchronization; modularity concerns actual boundary isolation, so naming components as modules cannot guarantee fault containment.", "discriminating_review_test": "Introduce shared storage into nominally separate modules and test whether faults propagate, then isolate the shared resource without changing module labels. Check propagation path and boundary efficacy separately.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep propagation fragility P48-22/O1 distinct from genuine modular fault isolation P48-23/O1; require mechanism-level evidence before declaring containment.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-22/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When components depend on fast or tightly synchronized interactions with little independent slack, a local disturbance can propagate before isolation or recovery; coupling increases some cascade risks but is not itself proof of system fragility or the only cause of common-mode failure." }, { "role_ref": "P48-23/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Separately controlled modules with effective interfaces can interrupt fault propagation through dependencies, while hidden shared resources or tightly coupled paths can bypass those boundaries." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-55", "left_role_ref": "P48-23/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-21/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Isolation boundaries can interrupt cascades; second-order consequences arise even without modular systems.", "counterexample": "Social policy can create delayed consequences absent a component-isolation design.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-23/O1 requires effective module/interface isolation and a fault path that could be interrupted. P48-21/O1 requires a first effect mediating a later effect; second-order consequences can exist without modular architecture, and modularity does not require mediated consequences.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "mediation_vs_isolation_boundary", "rationale": "A modular isolation boundary can interrupt immediate fault transmission without any mediated second-order consequence; delayed indirect effects also arise in systems with no modular architecture.", "discriminating_review_test": "Test an interface stopping immediate fault spread with no downstream mediated effects, then a policy change producing an indirect delayed response without a modular architecture.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-23/O1 and mediated downstream effects P48-21/O1 distinct proposals; do not treat an effective isolation boundary as evidence of a second-order causal chain.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-23/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Separately controlled modules with effective interfaces can interrupt fault propagation through dependencies, while hidden shared resources or tightly coupled paths can bypass those boundaries." }, { "role_ref": "P48-21/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "An intervention can produce an immediate consequence that in turn produces additional indirect consequences through dependencies or later responses; a downstream effect is not automatically second-order unless it is mediated by an earlier effect." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-56", "left_role_ref": "P48-25/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-28/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Environmental fit is an intervention objective different from designing cooperative joint value.", "counterexample": "A harsh environment may require self-protection rather than mutually beneficial cooperation.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-25/D1 chooses adaptations for fit to a specified environment and objective. P48-28/D1 requires feasibility and credibility of joint surplus under cooperation. A zero-sum hostile environment can justify fit without any credible win-win arrangement.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "environmental_fit_vs_joint_surplus", "rationale": "Adapting to environmental conditions may improve survival or functional fit even in a hostile zero-sum setting, while joint-value cooperation requires credible feasible surplus.", "discriminating_review_test": "Evaluate defensive redesign under an adversarial environment with no credible cooperative counterpart, then mutually beneficial exchange under different incentives. Check objective conditions separately.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep environment-fit P48-25/D1 and cooperative-value P48-28/D1 as distinct decision contributions; mutual gain is conditional rather than a required form of fit.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-25/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Adjust a plan or its surrounding conditions to improve fit under chosen goals." }, { "role_ref": "P48-28/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Before preferring a win-win arrangement to a win-lose alternative over repeated interactions, compare expected joint value, distribution of gains, credibility of cooperation, defection risk, and time horizon under the stated objective." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-57", "left_role_ref": "P48-27/D1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES/D1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Allocating actual decision consequences differs from designing a reward rule with target proxies.", "counterexample": "An officer can bear personal liability without any particular target-based bonus.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-27/D1 requires decision authority and actual consequence exposure to be appropriately aligned while managing third-party harms. QE-EX-INCENTIVES/D1 requires reward rules oriented to intended contributions. Personal liability can exist without target-based rewards or bonuses.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "consequence_accountability_vs_reward_target", "rationale": "Consequence accountability means an actor actually bears gains or losses linked to a decision; designing metric-based rewards is a different mechanism and can exist without personal downside exposure.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare an accountable fiduciary exposed to downside but receiving fixed compensation against a salaried team rewarded on an imperfect target without direct personal loss.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep consequence alignment P48-27/D1 distinct from target/reward design QE-EX-INCENTIVES/D1; do not equate liability with metric-based bonuses or policy effectiveness.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_maintained_card_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-27/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "When feasible, design decision rights and accountability so those exercising meaningful control bear proportionate consequences, while protecting affected third parties from unmanaged externalities." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES/D1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "Test whether the reward rule favors the intended contribution rather than a convenient proxy." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-58", "left_role_ref": "P48-28/O1", "right_role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Stakeholder interdependence permits joint value but does not require credible expectations of cooperation.", "counterexample": "Two strangers may influence one another economically without trusting the other party.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-28/O1 describes interdependent stakeholders who may jointly create additional value. QE-EX-TRUST/O1 requires credible expectations that another party will cooperate. Two mutually dependent strangers can create possible joint gains without established trust.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "joint_surplus_vs_reliability_expectation", "rationale": "Interdependent stakeholders can generate mutually beneficial value without a prior basis for relying on each other's commitments; trust needs credible cooperation expectations.", "discriminating_review_test": "Use strangers exchanging goods through simultaneous escrow without established interpersonal trust, then repeated promises supporting confidence without any new joint surplus. Compare prerequisites.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-28/O1's conditional joint-value mechanism separate from maintained QE-EX-TRUST/O1's credibility mechanism; exchange technology may substitute for personal trust.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_maintained_card_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-28/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Interdependent stakeholders can sometimes produce additional joint value through coordination, depending on feasible gains and incentives." }, { "role_ref": "QE-EX-TRUST/O1", "record_kind": "authored_card_role", "current_summary": "Credible expectations about another party can support willingness to cooperate." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-59", "left_role_ref": "P48-39/O1", "right_role_ref": "P48-40/O1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Confirming existing beliefs and wishing for particular outcomes are distinct cognitive tendencies.", "counterexample": "Someone may desire a conclusion that contradicts their current beliefs.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-39/O1 concerns selective belief-confirming search or interpretation relative to preexisting belief. P48-40/O1 concerns preferential treatment of a desired conclusion. Show a desired but currently disbelieved conclusion as a separable motivated-reasoning case.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "prior_belief_vs_desired_outcome_bias", "rationale": "Selective confirmation of an existing belief and favoring a desired conclusion can pull judgment in opposite directions when the person's preference contradicts what they believe.", "discriminating_review_test": "Ask for evidence evaluation when a participant wants an outcome they currently think unlikely, then when they believe an undesirable outcome likely. Compare evidence weighting by belief and desire.", "proposed_resolution": "Retain confirmation-bias P48-39/O1 and motivated-reasoning P48-40/O1 as distinct descriptive failures; related evidence distortions do not imply identical causal triggers.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r22-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-39/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Information search or interpretation can favor an existing belief." }, { "role_ref": "P48-40/O1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A desired conclusion can influence how a person attends to or interprets supporting information." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-60", "left_role_ref": "P48-39/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-36/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Independent precommitment review is a Decision safeguard; searching counterevidence is an Epistemic method.", "counterexample": "A reviewer may delay commitment when no new disconfirming observation is available.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-39/D1 is a choice safeguard requiring an independent pre-commitment challenge. P48-36/E1 actively seeks observations potentially refuting a favored claim, whether or not commitment is imminent. A review procedure can operate without collecting new disconfirming observations.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "precommitment_decision_review_vs_counterevidence_search", "rationale": "An independent precommitment review can delay a decision without generating new contrary evidence. Disconfirmation is an Epistemic search tactic that can occur long before commitment.", "discriminating_review_test": "Before a product launch, an independent reviewer pauses approval without new data. Later an experiment actively seeks disconfirming customer observations. Compare the Decision hold with evidence search.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-39/D1 independent-challenge safeguard distinct from P48-36/E1 counterevidence search; an action sequence may use both.", "case_test_anchors": [ "product launch", "experiment" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-39/D1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "For an important choice, use a proportionate independent challenge before commitment." }, { "role_ref": "P48-36/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Deliberately search for observations that would count against a favored explanation even when no formal comparison set is defined." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-61", "left_role_ref": "P48-42/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-39/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Frame-dependent attractiveness and evidence selection based on prior beliefs have different triggers.", "counterexample": "Equivalent gain/loss frames can move judgments without any established prior belief.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-42/E1 tests sensitivity of judgment to materially equivalent presentation frames while holding decision-relevant facts fixed. P48-39/E1 tests selective weighing of belief-consistent evidence. Gain/loss framing with no prior belief can yield only frame susceptibility.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "equivalent_frame_susceptibility_vs_prior_belief_confirmation", "rationale": "People may react differently to equal gain/loss presentations without an antecedent belief; confirmation bias instead gives unequal weight to evidence favoring a prior belief.", "discriminating_review_test": "First-time patients compare a treatment framed as 90% survival versus 10% mortality. Separately test committed readers choosing belief-consistent studies, keeping factual outcomes constant.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-42/E1 framing susceptibility distinct from P48-39/E1 belief-confirmation error; test frame invariance independently of selective evidence weight.", "case_test_anchors": [ "90% survival", "10% mortality" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-42/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Even when the relevant underlying outcomes are equivalent, the presentation frame can distort evidential interpretation and change judged attractiveness." }, { "role_ref": "P48-39/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Belief-driven unequal scrutiny of confirming and conflicting evidence can distort an inference." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-62", "left_role_ref": "P48-44/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-31/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Agreement is not proof but can contain signal; task signal discrimination is broader.", "counterexample": "A sensor may yield a task-discriminative signal without any social agreement, while many mutually dependent commentators may agree on an uninformative claim without producing independent evidence.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-44/E1 assesses what independent consensus can and cannot establish; P48-31/E1 determines task-discriminative signal versus nuisance variation. Test a sensor signal with no social agreement, and a broad social consensus that adds little independent evidence.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "independent_consensus_evidence_vs_task_signal_quality", "rationale": "Consensus may convey evidence if sources are independent, while task signal quality can arise from non-social measurement. Agreement can be copied and add almost no new information.", "discriminating_review_test": "Compare a predictive machine sensor with no experts agreeing against 30 commentators repeating one unsupported post. Measure predictive signal apart from source independence of consensus.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep P48-44/E1 consensus-limits guardrail distinct from P48-31/E1 task-relevance signal assessment; consensus is only one potential evidence input.", "case_test_anchors": [ "machine sensor", "30 commentators" ], "evidence_scope": "title_only_candidate_role_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r24-ownership-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-44/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Agreement alone does not establish a claim as true; its evidential weight depends on source reliability and dependence, including shared evidence, rather than simply the number of agreeing reports." }, { "role_ref": "P48-31/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Define the task-relevant signal as evidence that discriminates a specified state or hypothesis, estimate nuisance variation and measurement noise, and check whether an observed pattern remains informative under suitable comparisons." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-63", "left_role_ref": "P48-45/E1", "right_role_ref": "P48-45/E2", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Mistaking proxy improvement for outcomes is a failure; independent proxy validation is a corrective method.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-45/E1 is proxy-substitution failure: a metric's improvement is treated as sufficient evidence of the desired outcome. P48-45/E2 is an independently observed outcome comparison. Show reliance on a proxy with the independent observation unavailable, then decide whether the corrective was performed.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "failure_vs_corrective_roles_distinct", "rationale": "Proxy substitution E1 describes false inference from proxy success; proxy validation E2 is the independent-outcome comparison used to detect it.", "discriminating_review_test": "Contrast an unjustified proxy-as-outcome inference with a correctly executed independent-outcome check that exposes a divergence.", "proposed_resolution": "Preserve separate E1 failure and E2 method inside the metric-gaming fixture seed. Treat error detection and the erroneous inference as separate role functions even if the same metric dataset is used.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-45/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Treating proxy improvement as sufficient evidence of better service can conceal divergence." }, { "role_ref": "P48-45/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A proxy-divergence check compares measured progress with independently observed outcomes." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" }, { "case_id": "R19C-64", "left_role_ref": "P48-45/E2", "right_role_ref": "P48-32/E1", "r20_case_snapshot": { "semantic_boundary": "Indicator validity and sample representativeness are separate requirements.", "adjudication_gate": "P48-45/E2 checks whether indicator movement matches independently observed service outcomes. P48-32/E1 tests sample-frame relevance, selection, dependence and effective size. A representative proxy sample can be statistically sound yet measure the wrong construct.", "proposed_ownership_relation": "role_scope_distinction" }, "editorial_disposition": "distinct_proxy_validity_and_sampling_methods", "rationale": "A representative sample may faithfully measure the wrong service proxy; a relevant proxy may be assessed from a biased nonrepresentative sample.", "discriminating_review_test": "Cross independent outcome validity with sample-selection quality to produce both directions of disagreement.", "proposed_resolution": "Keep proxy-validity evaluation and sample-quality evaluation separately scoped; neither check substitutes for the other.", "evidence_scope": "title_only_and_fixture_definitions", "underlying_evidence_status": "no_independently_verified_primary_source_at_this_checkpoint", "approval_status": "recommendation_pending_independent_review", "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false, "recommendation_source": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r21-priority-decisions.json", "resolved_endpoints": [ { "role_ref": "P48-45/E2", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "A proxy-divergence check compares measured progress with independently observed outcomes." }, { "role_ref": "P48-32/E1", "record_kind": "active_proposal", "current_summary": "Before generalizing, evaluate the sampling frame, relevance to the target population, selection bias, dependence among observations, and effective sample size relative to the uncertainty of the estimate; a large biased sample does not repair representativeness." } ], "review_scope": "historical_recommendation_current_endpoints_not_reaccepted" } ], "semantic_review": { "version": "qe-semantic-review-0.1.0", "status": "proposal_pending_acceptance", "baseline_path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r26-effective-roles.json", "changes": [ { "input_id": "P48-02", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "issue_id": "QE-I07", "before": { "input_id": "P48-02", "title": "Trade-offs are unavoidable", "owner_ref": "QE48-C02", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Where finite resources, incompatible requirements, or binding constraints make alternatives mutually exclusive, advancing one feasible objective entails foregoing another; changing constraints, technology or coordination may remove a particular trade-off, so unavoidability is conditional.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-r13-semantic-repairs.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-02", "stack": "Ontological", "role_id": "O1", "authority": "new_QE_editorial_boundary_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-02/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-SCAR", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-FIN", "label": "Finite Resources" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-O-SCAR", "label": "Scarcity" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "r13_semantic_boundary_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false }, "after": { "input_id": "P48-02", "title": "Trade-offs are unavoidable", "owner_ref": "QE48-C02", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "proposed_role_type": "world_mechanic", "effective_role_summary": "Where finite resources, incompatible requirements, or binding constraints make alternatives mutually exclusive, advancing one feasible objective entails foregoing another; changing constraints, technology or coordination may remove a particular trade-off, so unavoidability is conditional.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-02", "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-02/Ontological/O1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-O-LIM", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "super_root_only_pending_more_specific_review", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false }, "rationale": "Preserve incompatible-requirement trade-offs as well as scarcity. Reality & Limits contains constraints on feasible states; Scarcity does not contain all incompatible requirements. Missing intermediate ranks remain absent.", "accepted": false }, { "input_id": "P48-12", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "issue_id": "QE-I08", "before": { "input_id": "P48-12", "title": "High-leverage first", "owner_ref": "QE48-C12", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Prioritize action with high relevant marginal value per scarce resource.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-12", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-12/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "label": "Resource Allocation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "after": { "input_id": "P48-12", "title": "High-leverage first", "owner_ref": "QE48-C12", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "When increments are feasible and divisible, compare their relevant marginal value per unit of a shared scarce resource and update that comparison as returns change; indivisibility, complementarities, or interacting constraints require comparing feasible bundles rather than applying a fixed ratio ranking.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-12", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-12/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "label": "Resource Allocation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false }, "rationale": "Bound the previously unrestricted marginal-ratio advice. Local marginal comparison is a possible contribution within opportunity-cost allocation, not a generally optimal portfolio rule. Keep candidate identity pending the recorded ownership review; this qualification is QE editorial synthesis, not recovered source wording.", "accepted": false }, { "input_id": "P48-25", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "issue_id": "QE-I06", "before": { "input_id": "P48-25", "title": "Fit to environment beats force-fitting", "owner_ref": "QE48-C25", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Adjust a plan or its surrounding conditions to improve fit under chosen goals.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-25", "stack": "Decision", "role_id": "D1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-25/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-ENV", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": { "family_id": "QEF-D-ENV", "label": "Environment Design" } }, "family_precision": "provisional_principle_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "after": { "input_id": "P48-25", "title": "Fit to environment beats force-fitting", "owner_ref": "QE48-C25", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "proposed_role_type": "decision_implication", "effective_role_summary": "Adjust a plan or its surrounding conditions to improve fit under chosen goals.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-25", "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-25/Decision/D1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "super_root_only_pending_more_specific_review", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false }, "rationale": "Preserve changing a plan as well as changing its surroundings. Both are goal-dependent interventions; only the latter necessarily modifies conditions enabling behavior. Use the existing super-root without inventing a terminal family.", "accepted": false }, { "input_id": "P48-30", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "issue_id": "QE-I05", "before": { "input_id": "P48-30", "title": "Map is not territory", "owner_ref": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_guardrail", "effective_role_summary": "Treat a representation as a selective model whose omissions matter to its purpose.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-30", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-30/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "after": { "input_id": "P48-30", "title": "Map is not territory", "owner_ref": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "boundary", "effective_role_summary": "A representation supports conclusions only within the aspects and conditions it represents adequately for the intended purpose; omitted features can limit its applicability without making every simplification defective.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-30", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-30/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models" }, "root_family": null, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false }, "rationale": "This is a limit on representation-based inference, not an ordered modeling procedure or a correction of an identified role. Recast the imperative as a descriptive boundary; retain purpose-relative omissions. Canonical authoring would use Boundary principle type and explicit scope, without inventing method steps or a corrects edge.", "accepted": false }, { "input_id": "P48-37", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "issue_id": "QE-I05", "before": { "input_id": "P48-37", "title": "Correlation is not causation", "owner_ref": "QE48-C37", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_guardrail", "effective_role_summary": "Avoid treating an observed association as sufficient identification of causality.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-37", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-37/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "after": { "input_id": "P48-37", "title": "Correlation is not causation", "owner_ref": "QE48-C37", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "boundary", "effective_role_summary": "Observed association alone does not identify a causal effect without an adequate identification design or assumptions that address alternative causal explanations.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-37", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-37/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false }, "rationale": "This limits what association alone licenses. It does not claim association is useless or require all causal inference to be experimental. Boundary is sufficient; a future identification method would need its own procedure and assumptions, and a corrective would need an authoritative target relation.", "accepted": false }, { "input_id": "P48-44", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "issue_id": "QE-I05", "before": { "input_id": "P48-44", "title": "Consensus is not proof", "owner_ref": "QE48-C44", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "epistemic_guardrail", "effective_role_summary": "Treat agreement as informative evidence only to the degree its sources are independent and reliable.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json", "collection": "rows", "input_id": "P48-44", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_id": "E1", "authority": "editorial_semantic_proposal" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-44/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "review_required_title_inferred_or_fixture_based", "human_accepted": false }, "after": { "input_id": "P48-44", "title": "Consensus is not proof", "owner_ref": "QE48-C44", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "proposed_role_type": "boundary", "effective_role_summary": "Agreement alone does not establish a claim as true; its evidential weight depends on source reliability and dependence, including shared evidence, rather than simply the number of agreeing reports.", "summary_source": { "path": "data/proposals/semantic-review.json", "collection": "changes", "input_id": "P48-44", "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "authority": "QE_editorial_repair_not_primary_source" }, "legacy_summary_ref": "data/reconciliation/qe48-checkpoint4-resolutions.json#P48-44/Epistemic/E1", "adopted_family_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "full_family_path": { "super_root": { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating" }, "root_family": { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation" }, "parent_family": null, "principle_family": null }, "family_precision": "provisional_broad_family", "review_status": "current_semantic_repair_pending_acceptance", "human_accepted": false }, "rationale": "This limits inference from consensus. Independence is not a binary prerequisite for all evidential value: dependent reports may still convey one reliable source. Remove that overstatement explicitly. No new role type, aggregation procedure, or corrective target is asserted.", "accepted": false } ], "scenarios": [ { "scenario_id": "S-TRADEOFF-INCOMPATIBLE", "role_refs": [ "P48-02/O1" ], "assumptions": [ "Full disclosure and confidentiality concern the same information, recipients, and time.", "No resource shortage is assumed." ], "observations": [ "More budget does not make disclosure and withholding simultaneously satisfiable." ], "predictions": [ { "claim": "QEF-O-SCAR", "outcome": "outside", "reason": "The incompatibility need not be competition for a limited resource." }, { "claim": "QEF-O-LIM", "outcome": "inside", "reason": "The simultaneous objectives constrain feasible states." } ], "falsifies_proposal_if": "The example turns out to require only a limited resource, or the unchanged role excludes non-resource incompatibility.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "S-TRADEOFF-SCARCE", "role_refs": [ "P48-02/O1" ], "assumptions": [ "Two tasks each require the same available hour.", "They cannot run simultaneously." ], "observations": [ "Choosing one excludes the other." ], "predictions": [ { "claim": "QEF-O-SCAR", "outcome": "inside", "reason": "Competing uses of one scarce resource satisfy the narrower definition." }, { "claim": "QEF-O-LIM", "outcome": "inside", "reason": "The narrow case also constrains feasible states." } ], "falsifies_proposal_if": "The broader placement prevents expressing ordinary resource trade-offs.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "S-FIT-FIXED", "role_refs": [ "P48-25/D1" ], "assumptions": [ "Terrain cannot be changed.", "The goal is to complete an expedition safely." ], "observations": [ "The team changes its route and schedule, leaving the terrain unchanged." ], "predictions": [ { "claim": "QEF-D-ENV", "outcome": "outside", "reason": "The plan changes, not environmental conditions enabling behavior." }, { "claim": "QEF-D-GOV", "outcome": "inside", "reason": "Choosing a better-fitting plan is a goal-dependent intervention." } ], "falsifies_proposal_if": "Changing a plan to fixed conditions is excluded by the unchanged role, or the super-root excludes such choices.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "S-FIT-ENVIRONMENT", "role_refs": [ "P48-25/D1" ], "assumptions": [ "A workplace distraction can be removed.", "The goal is better focused work." ], "observations": [ "The team changes the workspace to make focused behavior easier." ], "predictions": [ { "claim": "QEF-D-ENV", "outcome": "inside", "reason": "Conditions enabling behavior are changed." }, { "claim": "QEF-D-GOV", "outcome": "inside", "reason": "The narrower intervention remains within the broader placement." } ], "falsifies_proposal_if": "The new placement cannot preserve environment-design applications.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "S-MAP", "role_refs": [ "P48-30/E1" ], "assumptions": [ "A transit map preserves stop connections but omits geographic distances." ], "observations": [ "It answers which line connects two stops.", "It cannot alone determine walking distance." ], "predictions": [ { "claim": "connectivity conclusion", "outcome": "supported", "reason": "The represented feature matches the question." }, { "claim": "walking-distance conclusion", "outcome": "unsupported", "reason": "The needed information is omitted." } ], "falsifies_proposal_if": "The boundary rejects all abstraction or licenses conclusions about omitted distances.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "S-CAUSE", "role_refs": [ "P48-37/E1" ], "assumptions": [ "Ice-cream sales and swimming incidents increase in hot weather.", "Only an observational association is supplied; no adjustment or intervention is provided." ], "observations": [ "Two variables covary while weather is an alternative common cause." ], "predictions": [ { "claim": "association", "outcome": "supported", "reason": "Covariation is observed in the stipulated example." }, { "claim": "effect of increasing sales on incidents", "outcome": "unidentified", "reason": "The association does not rule out the common-cause explanation." } ], "falsifies_proposal_if": "Association alone identifies the effect without any identifying assumptions, or the boundary excludes valid identified observational designs.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "S-CONSENSUS", "role_refs": [ "P48-44/E1" ], "assumptions": [ "Ten outlets copy the same reliable report.", "No additional independent investigation is performed." ], "observations": [ "There are ten agreeing reports but one evidential source." ], "predictions": [ { "claim": "ten independent confirmations", "outcome": "unsupported", "reason": "Repetition shares the same evidence." }, { "claim": "some evidential value", "outcome": "supported", "reason": "Dependence does not erase the original source reliability." } ], "falsifies_proposal_if": "The boundary counts copies as independent confirmation or assigns zero value solely because reports are dependent.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false } ], "allocation_scenarios": [ { "scenario_id": "A-LINEAR", "role_refs": [ "P48-12/D1", "P48-01/D1" ], "assumptions": [ "Same additive objective and deterministic stated values for every option.", "Only the listed options and constraints are available." ], "resource_budgets": [ 4 ], "options": [ { "id": "A", "costs": [ 1 ], "values": [ 3, 3, 3, 3 ], "divisible": true }, { "id": "B", "costs": [ 1 ], "values": [ 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "divisible": true } ], "mode": "divisible", "prediction": { "ratio_choice": [ "A", "A", "A", "A" ], "optimal_choice": [ "A", "A", "A", "A" ], "ratio_value": 12, "optimal_value": 12 }, "interpretation": "Constant returns and one resource give agreement. Agreement in this case does not establish identity.", "falsifies_proposal_if": "Recompute feasible choices under these exact assumptions. A different optimum or an unqualified ratio rule matching every counterexample defeats the recorded discriminator.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "A-NONLINEAR", "role_refs": [ "P48-12/D1", "P48-01/D1" ], "assumptions": [ "Same additive objective and deterministic stated values for every option.", "Only the listed options and constraints are available." ], "resource_budgets": [ 2 ], "options": [ { "id": "A", "costs": [ 1 ], "values": [ 10, 1 ], "divisible": true }, { "id": "B", "costs": [ 1 ], "values": [ 6, 6 ], "divisible": true } ], "mode": "divisible", "prediction": { "ratio_choice": [ "A", "B" ], "optimal_choice": [ "A", "B" ], "ratio_value": 16, "optimal_value": 16 }, "interpretation": "Recomputing marginal returns gives 16; fixing the initial ranking and taking A twice gives 11. Declining returns require updated comparisons.", "falsifies_proposal_if": "Recompute feasible choices under these exact assumptions. A different optimum or an unqualified ratio rule matching every counterexample defeats the recorded discriminator.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "A-INDIVISIBLE", "role_refs": [ "P48-12/D1", "P48-01/D1" ], "assumptions": [ "Same additive objective and deterministic stated values for every option.", "Only the listed options and constraints are available." ], "resource_budgets": [ 10 ], "options": [ { "id": "A", "costs": [ 6 ], "values": [ 12 ], "divisible": false }, { "id": "B", "costs": [ 10 ], "values": [ 19 ], "divisible": false } ], "mode": "indivisible", "prediction": { "ratio_choice": [ "A" ], "optimal_choice": [ "B" ], "ratio_value": 12, "optimal_value": 19 }, "interpretation": "A has the larger ratio (2 versus 1.9), but choosing it precludes the indivisible B. Comparing complete feasible alternatives reveals the 19-value option.", "falsifies_proposal_if": "Recompute feasible choices under these exact assumptions. A different optimum or an unqualified ratio rule matching every counterexample defeats the recorded discriminator.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "A-CONSTRAINTS", "role_refs": [ "P48-12/D1", "P48-01/D1" ], "assumptions": [ "Same additive objective and deterministic stated values for every option.", "Only the listed options and constraints are available." ], "resource_budgets": [ 4, 2 ], "options": [ { "id": "A", "costs": [ 1, 2 ], "values": [ 10 ], "divisible": false }, { "id": "B", "costs": [ 2, 1 ], "values": [ 9 ], "divisible": false }, { "id": "C", "costs": [ 2, 1 ], "values": [ 9 ], "divisible": false } ], "mode": "indivisible", "prediction": { "ratio_choice": [ "A" ], "optimal_choice": [ "B", "C" ], "ratio_value": 10, "optimal_value": 18 }, "interpretation": "Ranking by value per first resource ignores the second constraint. B+C fits both budgets and exceeds A.", "falsifies_proposal_if": "Recompute feasible choices under these exact assumptions. A different optimum or an unqualified ratio rule matching every counterexample defeats the recorded discriminator.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false }, { "scenario_id": "A-COMPLEMENTARITY", "role_refs": [ "P48-12/D1", "P48-01/D1" ], "assumptions": [ "Same additive objective and deterministic stated values for every option.", "Only the listed options and constraints are available." ], "resource_budgets": [ 2 ], "options": [ { "id": "A", "costs": [ 1 ], "values": [ 1, 20 ], "divisible": true }, { "id": "B", "costs": [ 1 ], "values": [ 8, 8 ], "divisible": true } ], "mode": "divisible", "prediction": { "ratio_choice": [ "B", "B" ], "optimal_choice": [ "A", "A" ], "ratio_value": 16, "optimal_value": 21 }, "interpretation": "The second increment of A unlocks a larger benefit after a low-value first increment. A local greedy comparison selects B twice (16); a feasible bundle comparison selects A twice (21). Divisibility alone does not guarantee greedy optimality when marginal returns increase.", "falsifies_proposal_if": "Recompute feasible choices under these exact assumptions. A different optimum or an unqualified ratio rule matching every counterexample defeats the recorded discriminator.", "evidence_kind": "synthetic_reasoning_example", "editorially_accepted": false } ], "ownership_review": { "case_id": "CURRENT-C01", "left_role_ref": "P48-12/D1", "right_role_ref": "P48-01/D1", "recommendation": "Prefer a scoped marginal-comparison contribution within the allocation concept before creating a separate Card. Keep both candidate IDs while ownership remains under review; do not implement a merge or reuse yet.", "scope_difference": "P48-01/D1 compares feasible alternatives under the same objective. P48-12/D1 supplies a local incremental comparison under additional divisibility and feasibility conditions. Neither the broad comparison nor the bounded heuristic supplies a universal optimization algorithm.", "alternatives": [ "Reuse within the allocation Card if the local procedure is useful but lacks an independent retrieval need.", "Specialize only if a separately maintained procedure and recurring retrieval need justify it.", "Retain independent ownership only if a distinct reusable definition survives normalized scope comparison." ], "remaining_decision": "Review the contribution and retrieval need, nonlinear returns, indivisible commitments, complementarities and multiple constraints before deciding the owner. Synthetic examples delimit advice; they do not establish source intent or empirical performance.", "accepted_card_merge": false, "accepted_role_reuse": false, "accepted_graph_edge": false }, "evidence_status": "QE_editorial_synthesis_no_primary_source_verification" }, "coverage": { "version": "qe48-coverage-0.2.0", "status": "proposal_pending_acceptance", "rows": [ { "input_id": "P48-01", "original_title": "Opportunity cost", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C01", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Value of the best displaced feasible alternative under the same objective.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-01/O1", "P48-01/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": "QE48-C01", "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-11", "R19C-30", "R19C-31", "CURRENT-C01" ], "coverage_status": "authored_identity", "unresolved_decision": "Review the provisional pilot definition, role boundaries and limited source assessments before editorial acceptance; matching the reserved identity does not establish accepted coverage.", "missing_work": [ "Independent editorial acceptance of the authored pilot and its identity/role routes.", "Broader source investigation and empirical support for exact assertions where appropriate; inspected conceptual passages alone do not validate the Card.", "Resolve related ownership comparisons without inferring accepted reuse, merger or graph edges." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-02", "original_title": "Trade-offs are unavoidable", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C02", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Conditional incompatibility of objectives under binding constraints.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-02/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-30" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Retain non-resource incompatibility; review the proposed Reality & Limits placement and overlap with opportunity cost.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-03", "original_title": "Bottleneck determines throughput", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C03", "proposed_concept_boundary": "A binding process constraint limits achievable throughput under stated operating conditions.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-03/O1", "P48-03/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": "QE48-C03", "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-44", "R19C-45" ], "coverage_status": "authored_identity", "unresolved_decision": "Review the provisional pilot definition, role boundaries and limited source assessments before editorial acceptance; matching the reserved identity does not establish accepted coverage.", "missing_work": [ "Independent editorial acceptance of the authored pilot and its identity/role routes.", "Broader source investigation and empirical support for exact assertions where appropriate; inspected conceptual passages alone do not validate the Card.", "Resolve related ownership comparisons without inferring accepted reuse, merger or graph edges." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-04", "original_title": "Margin of safety", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE-EX-MARGIN", "proposed_concept_boundary": "A buffer protects against specified adverse variation or estimation error.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-04/O1", "P48-04/E1", "P48-04/D1", "P48-04/D2" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": "QE-EX-MARGIN", "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-15", "R18C-16", "R19C-32", "R19C-46" ], "coverage_status": "fixture_only", "unresolved_decision": "Review four distinct roles and the fixture identity; specify what the buffer absorbs, its costs, and the exposure limit.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-05", "original_title": "Avoid ruin first", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C05", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Preserving viability takes priority when an exposure can cause unacceptable irreversible loss.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-05/D1", "P48-05/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-15", "R19C-32", "R19C-33", "R19C-47" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify whose viability, the ruin threshold and feasible safeguards; distinguish ruin avoidance from ordinary margin sizing.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-06", "original_title": "Positive asymmetry matters", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C06", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Upside and downside distributions can justify favorable exposure under a specified objective.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-06/D1", "P48-06/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-34", "R19C-46", "R19C-47" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define relevant payoffs and probabilities; favorable asymmetry alone does not authorize excessive exposure.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-07", "original_title": "Position sizing matters", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C07", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Exposure size must fit loss tolerance and the available risk budget.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-07/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-16", "R19C-33", "R19C-34" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define sizing inputs and correlated exposures; review overlap with ruin avoidance and safety margins.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-08", "original_title": "Optionality has value", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C08", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Retaining feasible future choices can be valuable under uncertainty.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-08/D1", "P48-08/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-14", "R18C-17", "R19C-48", "R19C-49" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Account for option costs, expiry and actual exercise feasibility; separate structural value from the recommendation to preserve options.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-09", "original_title": "Reversible vs irreversible decisions", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C09", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Cost and feasibility of reversal affect how commitments should be evaluated.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-09/E1", "P48-09/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-09", "R18C-14", "R19C-48", "R19C-49" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify reversal costs and thresholds; compare classification, staging and learning-before-commitment roles.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-10", "original_title": "Staged commitment", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C10", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Commitment can be divided into stages with explicit continuation decisions.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-10/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-09", "R18C-10", "R18C-17" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify stage gates, stop conditions and staging costs; distinguish a reusable procedure from a scoped use of reversibility.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-11", "original_title": "Front-load learning, back-load irreversibility", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C11", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Useful learning can precede costly irreversible commitment when delay is feasible.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-11/E1", "P48-11/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-10", "R19C-50" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify which uncertainties can be reduced and what delay costs; compare with staged commitment without duplicating its procedure.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-12", "original_title": "High-leverage first", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C12", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Bounded marginal-value comparison within feasible resource allocation.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-12/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-51", "CURRENT-C01" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "The pilot proposes a bounded contribution to QE48-C01/D2. Decide whether this captures the intended contribution or whether High-leverage first needs a distinct boundary; QE48-C12 remains reserved and unauthored, with no accepted merge.", "missing_work": [ "Review the proposed P48-12/D1 → QE48-C01/D2 route in the pilot identity ledger.", "Determine whether broader leverage mechanisms exceed the bounded incremental allocation procedure.", "Inspect sources for any broader claim before authoring it; do not infer full coverage from the D2 contribution." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-13", "original_title": "Constraint-first prioritization", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C13", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Priority given to relieving the constraint relevant to a chosen system objective.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-13/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-44", "R19C-45", "R19C-51" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define constraint diagnosis and intervention prerequisites; distinguish bottleneck explanation from prioritization.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-14", "original_title": "Comparative advantage", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C14", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Comparative advantage concerns lower relative opportunity cost; beneficial specialization additionally depends on feasible exchange and coordination.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-14/O1", "P48-14/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-11", "R19C-31" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify feasible exchange, transaction costs and objectives; distinguish comparative from absolute advantage.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-15", "original_title": "Small gains compound", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C15", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Repeated changes can accumulate multiplicatively under reinvestment and persistence conditions.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-15/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-08", "R19C-35" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "State the accumulation mechanism, interruptions and losses; do not generalize compounding to every repeated activity.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-16", "original_title": "Consistency beats bursts", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C16", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Regular action may outperform intermittent bursts when the process rewards continuity.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-16/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-52" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify the activity and objective; find counterconditions where recovery or concentrated effort is preferable.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-17", "original_title": "Reputation compounds", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C17", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Candidate reputation accumulation distinct from generic compounding, currently on hold.", "active_role_refs": [], "held_role_refs": [ "P48-17/O1" ], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [ "QE-EX-TRUST" ], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-08", "R18C-27" ], "coverage_status": "identity_on_hold", "unresolved_decision": "Resolve the recorded evidence and ownership hold before proposing an active role or Card; reputation may decay or change discontinuously.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-18", "original_title": "Skills decay without use", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C18", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Unused skills may deteriorate through retention and performance mechanisms.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-18/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-52", "R19C-53" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define skill type, time horizon and maintenance conditions; title alone does not establish a universal decay rate.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-19", "original_title": "Culture drifts if unattended", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C19", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Shared practices may change without reinforcing maintenance mechanisms.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-19/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-36" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define culture and drift observations; distinguish descriptive change from a recommendation to preserve any particular culture.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-20", "original_title": "Feedback improves adaptation", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C20", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Feedback can support adaptation when signals reach an effective updating process.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-20/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-25", "R19C-35", "R19C-53" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify delays, signal quality and response mechanisms; feedback can destabilize as well as improve outcomes.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-21", "original_title": "Second-order effects matter", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C21", "proposed_concept_boundary": "A consequence can mediate a further causal effect.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-21/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [ "QE-EX-SECOND" ], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-01", "R19C-55" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Compare the necessary mediating consequence with authored QE-EX-SECOND/O1; related content is not accepted identity equivalence.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-22", "original_title": "Tight coupling creates fragility", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C22", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Strong interdependence can transmit disruptions and reduce buffering opportunities.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-22/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-54" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify coupling and disturbance propagation; compare modularity and consequence propagation without equating them.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-23", "original_title": "Modularity contains failure", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C23", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Boundaries between modules can limit propagation of some failures.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-23/O1", "P48-23/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-42", "R19C-54", "R19C-55" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify interfaces, shared dependencies and coordination costs; author design advice separately from the structural claim.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-24", "original_title": "Variation + selection drives adaptation", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C24", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Variation and differential retention can change a population or practice over time.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-24/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-25" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define variation, selection and retention mechanisms; avoid importing biological assumptions into every organizational analogy.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-25", "original_title": "Fit to environment beats force-fitting", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C25", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Plans or surrounding conditions can be adjusted for better fit to chosen goals.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-25/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-56" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Review the proposed Optimization & Control placement; fixed terrain adaptation is broader than environment design.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-26", "original_title": "Incentives drive behavior", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C26", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Incentives can influence behavior across rewards, penalties and social consequences.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-26/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [ "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" ], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-02", "R18C-03", "R18C-22", "R19C-36" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Compare broad scope with authored Outcome-Aligned Rewards and the Targets provider; do not copy their narrower mechanism as universal coverage.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-27", "original_title": "Skin in the game", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C27", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Decision authority and exposure to consequences can be aligned or separated; proportionate accountability is a distinct design recommendation.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-27/O1", "P48-27/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [ "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" ], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-22", "R19C-57" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify who bears which consequences and what can be observed; exposure does not guarantee competence or aligned behavior.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-28", "original_title": "Win-win beats win-lose long-term", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C28", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Mutual benefit can support durable interaction under repeat-play conditions.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-28/O1", "P48-28/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [ "QE-EX-TRUST" ], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-23", "R18C-28", "R19C-56", "R19C-58" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify feasible gains, horizon and enforcement; distinguish descriptive persistence from recommending a particular distribution.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-29", "original_title": "Reciprocity in repeated games", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C29", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Responses to prior behavior can influence repeated interactions.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-29/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [ "QE-EX-TRUST" ], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-23", "R18C-29" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify repeated-game conditions and information; distinguish reciprocity from guaranteed cooperation or universal moral advice.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-30", "original_title": "Map is not territory", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C30", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Representations limit conclusions according to purpose-relative adequacy.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-30/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": "QE48-C30", "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-07", "R18C-24" ], "coverage_status": "authored_identity", "unresolved_decision": "Review the provisional pilot definition, role boundaries and limited source assessments before editorial acceptance; matching the reserved identity does not establish accepted coverage.", "missing_work": [ "Independent editorial acceptance of the authored pilot and its identity/role routes.", "Broader source investigation and empirical support for exact assertions where appropriate; inspected conceptual passages alone do not validate the Card.", "Resolve related ownership comparisons without inferring accepted reuse, merger or graph edges." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-31", "original_title": "Signal vs noise", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C31", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Useful inference requires separating task-relevant variation from noise.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-31/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-20", "R19C-62" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define signal relative to a question and observation process; specify the proposed diagnostic content.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-32", "original_title": "Sample size / relevance matters", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C32", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Evidence strength depends on sample information and relevance to the target inference.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-32/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-20", "R19C-64" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify sampling assumptions and transfer conditions; more observations do not repair systematic irrelevance.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-33", "original_title": "Bayesian updating", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C33", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Belief revision can combine prior information with likelihood under a stated model.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-33/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-21" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Author the representation, ordered update steps, prior and likelihood requirements, and limits; a label is not a usable method.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-34", "original_title": "Calibration matters", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C34", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Probabilistic forecasts can be compared with outcomes to assess calibration.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-34/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-12", "R18C-21" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define forecast bins, scoring and outcome availability; distinguish calibration from confidence level or discrimination.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-35", "original_title": "Test alternative hypotheses", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C35", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Competing explanations can be compared against discriminating evidence.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-35/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-05", "R18C-18", "R19C-39", "R19C-50" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Author the comparison procedure and alternative-generation limits; distinguish overlap with disconfirmation and causal identification.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-36", "original_title": "Seek disconfirming evidence", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C36", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Evidence capable of contradicting a favored belief can challenge selective confirmation.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-36/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-18", "R19C-37", "R19C-60" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Decide method versus targeted corrective; if corrective, author one authoritative corrects relation and its bounded target.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-37", "original_title": "Correlation is not causation", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C37", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Association alone is insufficient to identify a causal effect.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-37/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-13" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Review the boundary without implying all observational inference fails; any identification procedure needs its own assumptions.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-38", "original_title": "Mechanism matters", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C38", "proposed_concept_boundary": "A proposed mechanism can help distinguish explanations when independently constrained.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-38/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-13" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify what mechanism evidence adds; a plausible story is not verified causal support.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-39", "original_title": "Confirmation bias", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE-EX-BIAS", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Selective search or interpretation can favor an existing belief.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-39/O1", "P48-39/E1", "P48-39/E2", "P48-39/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": "QE-EX-BIAS", "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-05", "R18C-06", "R18C-19", "R18C-26", "R19C-37", "R19C-38", "R19C-59", "R19C-60", "R19C-61" ], "coverage_status": "fixture_only", "unresolved_decision": "Review the fixture-based identity and four role contributions; corrective content must reference one authoritative target relation.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-40", "original_title": "Motivated reasoning", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C40", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Desired conclusions can influence evaluation of evidence.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-40/O1", "P48-40/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [ "P48-40/E2" ], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-06", "R18C-26", "R19C-59" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Distinguish motivation from generic confirmation; retain the separate E2 hold until its reactivation criteria are met.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-41", "original_title": "Overconfidence", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C41", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Confidence can exceed demonstrated accuracy or evidential warrant.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-41/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-12", "R19C-38" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Retain the R26 diagnostic scope; compare calibration without silently turning the bottleneck into its remedy.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-42", "original_title": "Framing effects", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C42", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Equivalent presentations can alter interpretation and judgment.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-42/O1", "P48-42/E1", "P48-42/E2" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-19", "R19C-41", "R19C-61" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Distinguish the tendency, diagnostic and targeted corrective roles; canonical E2 needs an authoritative corrects relation.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-43", "original_title": "Perspective-taking improves judgment", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C43", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Considering another viewpoint can expose information or assumptions missed by one perspective.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-43/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-39" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Specify procedure and limits; perspective diversity alone does not make claims accurate.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-44", "original_title": "Consensus is not proof", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C44", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Consensus has evidential limits determined by reliability and dependence.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-44/E1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-62" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Review the boundary, including shared evidence; dependent agreement need not have zero evidential value.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-45", "original_title": "What gets measured gets gamed", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Consequential metrics can induce adaptation that degrades their intended informativeness.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-45/O1", "P48-45/O2", "P48-45/E1", "P48-45/E2", "P48-45/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": "QE-EX-METRIC", "related_authored_card_refs": [ "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" ], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-03", "R18C-04", "R19C-40", "R19C-43", "R19C-63", "R19C-64" ], "coverage_status": "fixture_only", "unresolved_decision": "Review the fixture identity and five contributions, including provider reuse; it is not an authored QE48 Card simply because an example exists.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-46", "original_title": "Legibility is not reality", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C46", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Institutional action on simplified representations can change eligibility, resources and behavior while omitting relevant features.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-46/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [ "P48-46/E1" ], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R18C-07", "R18C-24", "R19C-43" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Compare representation limits and gaming mechanisms; keep E1 inactive pending the recorded independent-role evidence.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-47", "original_title": "Simplicity beats unnecessary complexity", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C47", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Unnecessary complexity can be avoided relative to a task and its requirements.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-47/D1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-42" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Define what complexity is unnecessary and what fidelity is required; simplicity alone is not the objective.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" }, { "input_id": "P48-48", "original_title": "Narrative shapes behavior", "candidate_identity_ref": "QE48-C48", "proposed_concept_boundary": "Narrative structure can influence cognitive interpretation and subsequent behavior.", "active_role_refs": [ "P48-48/O1" ], "held_role_refs": [], "authored_card_ref": null, "fixture_identity_ref": null, "related_authored_card_refs": [], "ownership_case_refs": [ "R19C-41" ], "coverage_status": "candidate_only", "unresolved_decision": "Retain the scoped cognitive claim; distinguish narrative influence from truth or universal persuasion.", "missing_work": [ "Review concept identity and role ownership before authoring a Card.", "Author role-local scope, logic and required method, diagnostic, objective or action content for the selected functions.", "Record exact inspected sources and transformations, or explicitly review QE editorial synthesis with assertion-level evidence limits.", "Obtain editorial acceptance separately from structural validation." ], "accepted_identity": false, "evidence_status": "title_derived_editorial_proposal_not_verified" } ], "counts": { "candidate_only": 41, "fixture_only": 3, "identity_on_hold": 1, "authored_identity": 3 } }, "canonical_compatibility": { "unsupported_role_types": [], "affected_roles": [], "card_conformance": "not_assessed", "editorial_acceptance": "not_granted" }, "limitations": [ "Structural validation does not establish semantic correctness or empirical support.", "Historical ownership recommendations are not renewed acceptance of current meanings.", "Proposals and held roles are not authored canonical Cards." ], "manifest_sha256": "fdfba8afc026465c9bde33874cd384448f6985ce3617f9160f4e53771c2fb41b", "validation_mode": "pinned_current_proposals", "pilot": { "version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "identity_review": { "status": "proposal_pending_acceptance", "decisions": [ { "card_id": "QE48-C01", "input_id": "P48-01", "decision": "Author the existing reserved QE48-C01 identity. Prototype High-leverage first as D2 on this Card; keep QE48-C12 and its intake role intact pending explicit ownership acceptance.", "comparisons": [ "Trade-offs also cover incompatible requirements without scarce-resource competition.", "Time-allocation fixtures specialize a resource or objective; this definition remains general.", "D1 compares complete alternatives; D2 is a conditional incremental procedure." ], "reconsider_if": "Marginal allocation shows an independently reusable meaning outside the scoped opportunity-cost contribution, or conflicts with an existing maintained owner.", "accepted": false }, { "card_id": "QE48-C03", "input_id": "P48-03", "decision": "Author the existing reserved QE48-C03 identity with a structural O1 and diagnostic reasoning method E1.", "comparisons": [ "P48-13 recommends interventions under broader constraints; E1 only tests a flow hypothesis.", "No new decision role or terminal method family is introduced." ], "reconsider_if": "The diagnostic procedure duplicates a maintained method, or the claimed capacity bound assumes a serial model that does not fit the intended concept.", "accepted": false }, { "card_id": "QE48-C30", "input_id": "P48-30", "decision": "Author QE48-C30 as a one-role boundary principle.", "comparisons": [ "Model evaluation is a procedure; this Card states what a representation alone cannot establish.", "P48-46/O1 concerns institutional consequences and its E1 remains held.", "Box is related inspected context; this is not a recovered Korzybski quotation." ], "reconsider_if": "Review finds the scoped boundary requires a different owner, or the title implies an unsupported historical equivalence.", "accepted": false } ], "proposal_role_links": [ { "input_role_ref": "P48-01/O1", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "O1", "treatment": "reserved_identity_authored", "accepted": false }, { "input_role_ref": "P48-01/D1", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1", "treatment": "reserved_identity_authored", "accepted": false }, { "input_role_ref": "P48-12/D1", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2", "treatment": "scoped_contribution_proposal", "accepted": false }, { "input_role_ref": "P48-03/O1", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "O1", "treatment": "reserved_identity_authored", "accepted": false }, { "input_role_ref": "P48-03/E1", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1", "treatment": "reserved_identity_authored", "accepted": false }, { "input_role_ref": "P48-30/E1", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1", "treatment": "reserved_identity_authored", "accepted": false } ] }, "application_results": [ { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-READY", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "conditionally_applicable", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-UNKNOWN", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "undetermined", "unknown_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-VALUES" } ], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-OUTSIDE", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "outside_recorded_conditions", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" } ], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-READY", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "conditionally_applicable", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-UNKNOWN", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "undetermined", "unknown_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INPUT" } ], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-OUTSIDE", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "outside_recorded_conditions", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-RESOURCE" } ], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-READY", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "conditionally_applicable", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-UNKNOWN", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "undetermined", "unknown_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-DATA" } ], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-OUTSIDE", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "outside_recorded_conditions", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-MODEL" } ], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C30-E1-READY", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "conditionally_applicable", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C30-E1-UNKNOWN", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "undetermined", "unknown_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-PURPOSE" } ], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C30-E1-OUTSIDE", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "outside_recorded_conditions", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-PURPOSE" } ], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-FORCED-CHOICE", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "conditionally_applicable", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-KNOWN-THRESHOLD", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "outside_recorded_conditions", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION" } ], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-KNOWN-COMPLEMENTARITY", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "outside_recorded_conditions", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION" } ], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-INVENTORY-UNKNOWN", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "undetermined", "unknown_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING" } ], "failed_checks": [], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-YIELD-OUTSIDE", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "definition_scope_review": "reviewed", "case_applicability": "outside_recorded_conditions", "unknown_checks": [], "failed_checks": [ { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING" } ], "evaluated_dimensions": [ "declared_scope", "required_role_objectives", "action_activation" ], "meaning": "Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization." } ], "source_inspection_note": "Selected published passages were inspected; source assertions and QE synthesis are not empirical validation or editorial acceptance." } }