{
  "digest_version": "0.1-draft",
  "status": "owner_reviewed_incremental",
  "created_from": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/multiple_owner_reviewed_sources",
  "owner_review_source": "knowledge-vault/work/internal/强哥的思想宇宙/QPI案例审阅/QPI提炼审核/multiple_owner_reviewed_case_files",
  "notes": [
    "O",
    "w",
    "n",
    "e",
    "r",
    "-",
    "r",
    "e",
    "v",
    "i",
    "e",
    "w",
    "e",
    "d",
    " ",
    "Q",
    "P",
    "I",
    " ",
    "c",
    "a",
    "s",
    "e",
    " ",
    "d",
    "i",
    "g",
    "e",
    "s",
    "t",
    "s",
    " ",
    "f",
    "r",
    "o",
    "m",
    " ",
    "i",
    "n",
    "c",
    "r",
    "e",
    "m",
    "e",
    "n",
    "t",
    "a",
    "l",
    " ",
    "c",
    "a",
    "s",
    "e",
    " ",
    "r",
    "e",
    "v",
    "i",
    "e",
    "w",
    ".",
    " ",
    "T",
    "h",
    "e",
    "s",
    "e",
    " ",
    "d",
    "i",
    "g",
    "e",
    "s",
    "t",
    "s",
    " ",
    "a",
    "r",
    "e",
    " ",
    "c",
    "a",
    "l",
    "i",
    "b",
    "r",
    "a",
    "t",
    "i",
    "o",
    "n",
    " ",
    "i",
    "n",
    "p",
    "u",
    "t",
    "s",
    ",",
    " ",
    "n",
    "o",
    "t",
    " ",
    "C",
    "C",
    "R",
    "A",
    "-",
    "a",
    "p",
    "p",
    "r",
    "o",
    "v",
    "e",
    "d",
    " ",
    "m",
    "o",
    "d",
    "e",
    "l",
    " ",
    "e",
    "v",
    "i",
    "d",
    "e",
    "n",
    "c",
    "e",
    " ",
    "a",
    "n",
    "d",
    " ",
    "n",
    "o",
    "t",
    " ",
    "a",
    " ",
    "m",
    "o",
    "d",
    "e",
    "l",
    " ",
    "s",
    "t",
    "a",
    "t",
    "u",
    "s",
    " ",
    "u",
    "p",
    "g",
    "r",
    "a",
    "d",
    "e",
    ".",
    "Round 03.1 normalized misframing_risks to misclassification_risk to match the QPI structured output contract.",
    "Round 03.1 renamed mixed_or_multi_perspective to qpi_complexity_pattern; intra_frame_mixed does not imply classification=mixed.",
    "For multi_perspective or inter_viewpoint_divergence cases, classification_by_viewpoint or viewpoint_summary is required."
  ],
  "cases": [
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
      "title": "Outline Review Was Not The Real Entry Point",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "supporting_evidence_for_context_engineering_entry_point_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The surface task was automating outline review, but owner review confirmed that the real issue was earlier context engineering and entry-point governance.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "wrong automation entry point exposes context engineering failure",
        "stage authority and owner confirmation gate precede outline review",
        "use as supporting evidence rather than strongest independent case"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as supporting evidence for a context-engineering / entry-point governance calibration case.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification",
        "violent_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
      "title": "Dispatch Pack Was Mistaken For Real Invocation",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "no_simulation_calibration_candidate",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A complete-looking dispatch pack and role reports did not constitute real independent agent invocation. The central issue is formal-output legitimacy, execution authenticity, invocation traceability, and the rule that the orchestrator must stop rather than simulate.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "simulation_only: true",
        "formal_output: false",
        "excluded_from_synthesis: true",
        "blocked_until_real_invocation: true",
        "cross-model no-simulation calibration example"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as a QPI issue regression and cross-model no-simulation calibration case.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification",
        "violent_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
      "title": "Chunk-First Distillation Produced Local Truth But Global Misread",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "local_truth_global_structure_misframing_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Chunk-first extraction produced locally true outputs but misread the whole-source structure. Owner review confirmed that the core scarcity is structural interpretation authority, not merely a missing processing path.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "do not split failure and remedy into separate cases",
        "whole-source gestalt has authority before chunk extraction",
        "named misframing risk: 局部真实冒充全局结构"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as a digest and selector calibration case for local truth misused as global structure.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "local_truth_impersonating_global_structure"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
      "title": "Material Distillation Needed Stop Gates, Not More Automation",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "stop_gate_and_downstream_boundary_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The surface question was how far to automate after material distillation, but owner review confirmed that the central QPI issue is stop-gate placement, downstream boundary control, and owner authorization.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "do_not_auto_create_writing_project: true",
        "do_not_auto_start_model_mining: true",
        "requires_owner_authorization_for_downstream_transition: true",
        "issue_with_downstream_P_tasks"
      ],
      "owner_confirmation_gates": [
        "whole-source gestalt confirmation",
        "topic map canonicalization",
        "material routing confirmation",
        "topic docs generation boundary",
        "writing-workbench transition gate",
        "model-mining authorization gate",
        "source-of-truth promotion gate"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as a digest and selector calibration case for stop-gate routing.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
      "title": "Personal Workflow Redesign Looked Like P But Became P/I",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "intra_frame_mixed_anchor_candidate",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A one-owner workflow redesign looked like a P-domain implementation problem, but it became P/I mixed because success depends on governance load, proxy stakeholders, state continuity, invocation authenticity, audit boundaries, and future reuse.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "Issue can be sustained governance load without many human participants",
        "anchor candidate for intra_frame_mixed",
        "code has relatively hard formal feedback; cognitive workflows do not have an equivalent compiler"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as a high-priority selector calibration anchor for intra_frame_mixed.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
      "title": "Complexity Placement Gate",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "complexity_placement_gate_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Complexity should not be judged by whether it looks large, but by what value it buys. Owner review confirmed this stays as a QPI case now and may later become evidence for a future model candidate, without introducing a third model in the MVP phase.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "do not introduce third model in this round",
        "future model candidate evidence only",
        "complexity must buy authenticity, fidelity, traceability, stoppability, authority clarity, or ROI"
      ],
      "value_categories": [
        "authenticity",
        "independence",
        "fidelity",
        "structure",
        "traceability",
        "reviewability",
        "reuse",
        "downstream dependency value",
        "stoppability",
        "adjudicability",
        "cost reasonableness / ROI"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as a QPI calibration case for justified versus unjustified process complexity.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
      "title": "Same Surface Term, Different Mechanisms",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "selector_calibration_multi_perspective_mechanism_ambiguity",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "dominant_scarcity": "mixed",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "medium"
      },
      "summary": "The same psychological-relational surface term can mean passive numbness, active cognitive withdrawal, or a mixed/unclear mechanism. Owner review adds that the source context is analysis of external content misframing, not neutral self-diagnosis.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "mark mechanism_ambiguity before route recommendation",
        "do not generalize passive numbness vs active withdrawal into a universal field",
        "QPI should request subject position, goal, relationship scene, time scale, and decision boundary before routing"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as selector calibration for multi-perspective mechanism ambiguity in psychological-relational material.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "premature_classification",
        "single_factor_totalization",
        "over_pathologizing",
        "violent_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
      "title": "I Domain Misread As a Label Question",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "label_question_false_positive_trap",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "issue_with_Q_component",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A label question becomes Issue-dominant when the label organizes identity, relationship boundaries, help-seeking, and future action. The label may still have a Q component, but it is no longer the dominant scarcity.",
      "minimum_context": [
        "problem_owner",
        "label_use",
        "decision_stake",
        "recurrence",
        "desired_output"
      ],
      "routing_notes": [
        "conditional what-is-X false-positive trap",
        "do not escalate every concept lookup",
        "escalate when the label affects identity, relationships, self-pathologizing, or long-term governance"
      ],
      "wrong_route_to_avoid": [
        "pure_Q_label_lookup",
        "automatic_I_from_any_psychological_label"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Ask how the label is being used before deciding whether this is pure Q or Issue-dominant self-framing.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "single_factor_totalization",
        "over_pathologizing"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
      "title": "Single-Factor Totalization Compresses a System",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "single_factor_totalization_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The risk is not identifying a high-weight factor; it is treating one factor as complete causal closure when the source already shows coupled psychological, relational, cognitive, and identity mechanisms.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "distinguish trigger, maintaining condition, high-weight factor, current action lever, and causal totality",
        "explanatory usefulness is not causal finality",
        "a current lever cannot replace the system maintenance map"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as regression against single definitive root-cause output when coupled mechanisms are present.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single_factor_totalization",
        "over_pathologizing",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
      "title": "Intervention Framed as a One-Time Solution",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "one_time_solution_misroute_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The case guards against treating psychological-relational Issue as a one-time Problem. QPI should not design intervention; it can only decide whether a bounded local P subtask has enough context.",
      "local_problem_conditions": [
        "actor",
        "object",
        "local_goal",
        "risk_boundary",
        "feedback_signal",
        "reversibility",
        "non_terminal framing"
      ],
      "wrong_route_to_avoid": [
        "one_time_fix",
        "three_step_cure",
        "single_intervention_script"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Route as Issue unless a bounded local P subtask is explicitly scoped and non-terminal.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
      "title": "External Help as Method Teaching vs Calibration Environment",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "supporting_external_authority_boundary_issue_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "External help is not framed as an intervention answer. The QPI issue is how external authority, calibration environment, dependency risk, and subject agency are bounded within self-governance.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "external_authority_boundary is a governance-load signal",
        "does therapy work style inputs are low-confidence until context is known",
        "psychological-relational inputs may be Q, P, or I depending on goal and decision stakes"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as supporting Issue digest for external authority boundary and calibration environment.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "single_factor_totalization",
        "over_pathologizing"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
      "title": "Time Scale Changes the QPI Classification",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "selector_calibration_time_scale_scope_case",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "dominant_scarcity": "mixed",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "QPI should not pretend to model full dynamic evolution, but it must record the time slice and classification scope so a local judgment is not treated as global truth.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "keep time_scale and classification_scope",
        "treat same phenomenon different time scale as inter_viewpoint_divergence for now",
        "do not add a new dynamic-scope enum in this round"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as selector calibration for short inputs whose Q/P/I route changes by time scale and decision boundary.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "premature_classification",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-007",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
      "title": "QPI Mismatch Table for Psychological-Relational Material",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "qpi_mismatch_diagnostics_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "This is a model-hardening case: QPI needs mismatch diagnostics, not only final labels, for psychological-relational inputs.",
      "wrong_route_to_avoid": [
        "I_as_Q",
        "I_as_P",
        "P_as_I",
        "over_pathologizing",
        "moral_judgment_substitution",
        "single_factor_totalization"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as regression foundation for QPI wrong-route detection.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification",
        "single_factor_totalization",
        "over_pathologizing"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-disappointment-008",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
      "title": "Isolation as Protective Boundary or Overgeneralized Defense",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "canonical_one_person_self_governance_issue_anchor",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "issue_with_local_P_candidates",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "classification_confidence": "high",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "This is the canonical anchor that Issue does not require multiple people. One-person self-governance can be Issue when the subject must continuously calibrate protection, openness, risk, energy, feedback, old defense, and new relational experiments.",
      "governance_variables": [
        "target",
        "intensity",
        "duration",
        "benefit",
        "cost",
        "generalization",
        "current_environment",
        "energy_state",
        "feedback",
        "reversibility"
      ],
      "local_problem_conditions": [
        "value_assessment",
        "actor",
        "object",
        "local_goal",
        "risk_boundary",
        "time_window",
        "feedback_signal",
        "reversibility",
        "non_terminal framing"
      ],
      "owner_model_notes": [
        "Single-person self-governance can involve energy, recovery, attribution, protective cutoff, and long feedback loops.",
        "Related owner models may be recorded as notes: Dual-Engine & Regenerator, Cognitive Regenerator, Attribution Oscilloscope, Metacognitive Monitoring & BMS, Value Assessment Gate.",
        "Do not add these as new QPI classification categories in this round."
      ],
      "wrong_route_to_avoid": [
        "binary_good_bad_judgment",
        "I_as_P",
        "over_pathologizing",
        "moral_judgment_substitution"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Replace binary judgment with governance review, then run value assessment to decide whether full Issue governance or only a bounded local Problem step is warranted.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "over_pathologizing",
        "single_factor_totalization",
        "premature_classification",
        "moral_judgment_substitution"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
      "title": "Hard Resource Gap Disguised As Compliance Documentation",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "hard_resource_gap_disguised_as_documentation_calibration_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "path_resource_trigger_with_compliance_governance_failure",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A hard physical resource gap is reframed as documentation, relabeling, and compliance packaging. The path/resource shortage triggers the case, but the QPI scarcity is governance/order failure around compliance authenticity and auditability.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "CT diagnosis notes must be translated into QPI governance language",
        "hard_resource_gap_disguised_as_documentation_problem",
        "internal anonymization acceptable; public use requires further generalization"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Separate legitimate remediation from compliance workaround risk before treating the gap as a solvable documentation problem.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
      "title": "Credential Metric Repair Damages Operational Continuity",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "credential_metric_operational_continuity_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "credential_metric_problem_escalated_into_staffing_governance_issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Credential metric repair improves the table while damaging the operating system. Role-function fit, operating memory, morale, labor risk, and continuity are violently reduced to credential count.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "operational_continuity is the summary focus",
        "role mismatch and morale/labor risk are mechanisms",
        "one of the clearest violent_reduction examples in this source"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Treat the selected staffing path as a governance issue before optimizing the credential metric.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
      "title": "Performance Decline With Incentive Backlash",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "performance_decline_incentive_backlash_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Performance decline is misread as insufficient effort, while the underlying mechanism is incentive backlash produced by cost allocation, trust loss, and institutional design.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "organization-level rewrite could be intra_frame_mixed",
        "kept as inter_viewpoint_divergence because role contrast is the strongest calibration value",
        "performance_decline_with_incentive_backlash"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Separate output symptom from incentive mechanism and identify which subject frame is being routed.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
      "title": "Strategic Function Governed As Indicator Packaging Unit",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "strategic_function_role_authority_mismatch_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "strategic_role_without_strategic_operating_conditions",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A strategic support function is blamed for not producing strategy while being denied resources, authority, trust, and executable space, then pulled back into indicator packaging.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "middle-leadership capability is a local P component, not the main classification",
        "do not expand into a full person-level viewpoint table",
        "public use may generalize planning function further"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Treat role-authority mismatch as the QPI issue before evaluating individual planning competence.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
      "title": "Low-Cost Ambition Creates Physical-Law Contradictions",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "low_cost_ambition_pattern_level_issue_case",
      "case_level": "pattern_level",
      "subcases": [
        "qpi-draft-001",
        "qpi-draft-002",
        "qpi-draft-003",
        "qpi-draft-004"
      ],
      "not_first_wave_regression": true,
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Multiple surface problems share one generating mechanism: low-cost ambition, target-resource inconsistency, and downstream contradiction absorption. Resource-dependent outcomes are treated as if command, packaging, or discipline could replace real exchange and capacity.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "whole-slice meta-case",
        "pattern-level Issue allowed when surface problems share a generating mechanism",
        "keep separate from narrow regression cases"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as digest / calibration for pattern-level Issue, not as first-wave regression.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "malicious_inflation",
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
      "title": "Data Completeness Masks Truthfulness Gap",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "data_completeness_truthfulness_gap_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "evidence_integrity_gap": "high",
      "audit_authenticity_risk": "high",
      "truthfulness_gap": "high",
      "summary": "The data package can be internally complete while externally fragile because records, indicators, and narratives do not correspond to stable operational reality. The issue is untrusted data, not missing data.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "missing data versus untrusted data regression",
        "facts are mostly known but inconvenient",
        "evidence authenticity audit precedes resource planning"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Run evidence authenticity audit before treating the case as a resource-planning problem.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-007",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
      "title": "Execution Lead Normalizes Workaround Translation",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "role_boundary_workaround_normalization_supporting_case",
      "classification_scope": "role_contextual",
      "evidence_status": "owner_confirmed_from_interviews",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "primary_risk": "normalization_of_workaround / complicity_in_workaround",
      "secondary_condition": "lack_of_escalation_channel",
      "summary": "A competent execution lead converts impossible top-down directives into feasible-looking workaround action, extending the life of a broken governance premise.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "role-boundary governance support case",
        "auxiliary inter_viewpoint_divergence sample only",
        "owner confirmed through multiple participant conversations"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Identify whether execution competence is protecting system viability or normalizing workaround risk.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-008",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
      "title": "Low-Cost Indicator Survival Cannibalizes Real Capability",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "umbrella_low_cost_indicator_survival_issue_case",
      "case_level": "umbrella_organization_level",
      "future_ct_relevance": true,
      "current_scope": "QPI case library only",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "External review pressure is a trigger and accelerator, not the root cause. Internal low-investment, high-pressure, formalistic governance turns indicator survival into a process that cannibalizes real capability.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "umbrella digest anchor",
        "do not replace narrower regression cases",
        "do not route into future CT work in this round"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Use as umbrella organization-level QPI Issue while keeping current scope inside QPI.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
      "title": "AI Tool Request Becomes Evidence Legitimacy Issue",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "ai_tool_evidence_legitimacy_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "high",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A tool-assisted material request becomes a QPI issue when AI is used to reverse-engineer evidence from desired conclusions. Missing evidence is the trigger, but the core scarcity is evidence legitimacy, audit authenticity, and tool-boundary governance.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "AI can organize evidence, but must not manufacture the evidentiary relationship",
        "do not treat as simple material generation",
        "current anonymization sufficient"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Require a traceable evidence inventory before tool-assisted drafting.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
      "title": "Credential Metric Creates Staffing-Ratio Deadlock",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "credential_metric_staffing_ratio_deadlock_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "External policy pressure triggers a staffing metric repair, but the organization creates a resource deadlock by counting credential value before proving real teaching-use value.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "external policy is trigger",
        "staffing absorption is path/resource blocker",
        "compliance value substituted for use value",
        "keep separate from other staffing cases"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Model real workload absorption and use value before further recruitment or reclassification.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
      "title": "Policy Cleanup Masks Policy Memory And Integrity Backlash",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "policy_memory_integrity_backlash_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "policy_repair_with_policy_memory_and_trust_debt",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "proxy_stakeholders": [
        "policy_memory"
      ],
      "summary": "A policy correction that looks executable still has to govern policy memory: historical commitments, sunk costs, trust debt, and behavior shaped by prior incentives.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "false-negative trap for policy cleanup",
        "incentive integrity plus trust repair",
        "policy_memory is not a person"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Separate future integrity rules from transitional handling of people affected by prior incentives.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
      "title": "Short-Term Packaging Substitutes For Long-Term Strategy",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "short_term_packaging_vs_long_term_strategy_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A resource-feasible compromise becomes strategic myopia if short-term reportability and packaging are not tested against long-term organizational positioning.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "decision layer sees strategic alignment",
        "execution layer sees reportability",
        "market-facing frame sees communication and enrollment",
        "keep role divergence visible"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Test resource-feasible compromise against long-term positioning before accepting it as strategy.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
      "title": "Cross-Boundary Resource Reuse Fails Role Fit",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "cross_boundary_resource_reuse_issue_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "supporting",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "resource_reuse_problem_from_decision_layer_but_role_boundary_issue_from_operating_system",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "minimum_problem_evidence": [
        "role_fit",
        "learner_fit",
        "schedule_fit",
        "quality_standard",
        "willingness",
        "retraining_cost",
        "compensation",
        "pilot_feedback"
      ],
      "summary": "Cross-boundary resource reuse is a violent reduction when different learners, capability models, time structures, and quality responsibilities are compressed into unused capacity.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "pair with staffing-ratio deadlock but do not merge",
        "interest-class pilot may be plausible; direct core-course redeployment is not valid without retraining and compensation"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Verify role fit and transition cost before treating redeployment as a legitimate Problem.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
      "title": "Outcome Decline With Contested Input Conditions",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "outcome_decline_quality_assurance_gap_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "outcome_decline_with_contested_input_conditions_and_quality_assurance_gap",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Input conditions may affect outcomes, but cannot replace audit of management levers. Isolated achievements can signal local capability, but primarily mask systemic outcome decline when broader quality indicators worsen.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "masking signal over latent capability",
        "avoid assigning all causality to one function",
        "quality assurance gap"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Build a quality assurance map linking complaints, outcomes, process controls, and owner accountability.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-007",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
      "title": "Tool Choice Masks Digital Governance Boundary",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "digital_governance_boundary_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Platform or AI deployment choice is not primarily a tool preference when the organization lacks digital governance criteria, data boundaries, lifecycle ownership, adoption standards, and migration responsibility.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "define digital governance criteria before platform selection",
        "local-vs-cloud detail can remain",
        "management and governance problem, not tool selection"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Define governance criteria and authority before selecting tools.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-008",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
      "title": "Operational Accident Reveals Bottom-Line Control Failure",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "bottom_line_control_failure_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "local_process_gap_revealing_bottom_line_control_failure",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A large activity without proper reporting, approval, and safety controls is a local process gap and a system-level signal that public safety, learner rights, and external compliance may not be treated as hard boundaries.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "concrete operating accident can reveal bottom-line control failure",
        "not just a missing checklist",
        "current anonymization sufficient"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Build hard-gate approval, reporting, risk ownership, participant safety controls, and stop rules.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
      "title": "Outcome Metric Pressure Becomes Reverse Accountability Power",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "hard_outcome_metric_authority_redesign_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "outcome_improvement_problem_with_authority_redesign",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Employment outcome pressure reveals real teaching and market-alignment problems, but reverse accountability power turns a downstream service function into an upstream authority over teaching.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "hard outcome metric hiding authority redesign",
        "separate outcome improvement from teaching authority transfer",
        "reverse accountability power is owner-approved wording"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Define shared outcome governance, evidence standards, and limits on reverse accountability before redesigning authority.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
      "title": "Credential Metric Repair Becomes Compliance Exposure",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "credential_metric_compliance_exposure_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "credential_gap_with_compliance_exposure",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A credential gap may be a real resource problem, but externalized metric repair can turn credential holders into indicator products and create compliance legitimacy risk.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "cross-link academic affairs staffing-ratio deadlock without merging",
        "evidence of substantive integration is a recommended check",
        "metric repair is not automatically a valid path"
      ],
      "evidence_gap": [
        "substantive_integration_not_proven",
        "credential_holder_role_in_teaching_or_research_unknown",
        "compliance_review_boundary_unclear"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Check whether credentialed personnel are substantively integrated before accepting metric repair as a legitimate path.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
      "title": "Internal Accounting Mismatch Inflates Functional Performance",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "reported_metric_legitimacy_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "reported_metric_lineage_problem_as_performance_legitimacy_issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "high",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The accounting mismatch is not merely missing data; it is a performance legitimacy problem when non-recognized or department-standard figures are used to justify strategic authority.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "do not accept reported metrics at face value",
        "data or logic errors should trigger evidence audit",
        "performance legitimacy is dominant"
      ],
      "evidence_gap": [
        "recognized_financial_standard_unknown",
        "reported_metric_lineage_unverified",
        "department_accounting_basis_conflicts_with_group_standard"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Reconcile financial recognition standards before using reported contribution as strategic evidence.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
      "title": "Outcome Promise Creates Student Pipeline Distortion",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "overpromising_student_pipeline_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "external_promise_and_student_pipeline_distortion",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Outcome promises can support recruitment only when delivery capacity and promise boundaries are real; otherwise they distort the student pipeline and change institutional responsibility.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "separate from reverse accountability case",
        "test legitimate outcome orientation versus overpromising",
        "promise boundary and delivery capacity are required"
      ],
      "boundary_tests": [
        "delivery_capacity",
        "historical_outcome",
        "employer_commitment",
        "student_fit",
        "risk_disclosure",
        "verification",
        "complaint_or_refund_boundary"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Require evidence that the promised outcome can be delivered before treating it as recruitment strategy.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
      "title": "High Outcome Data Masks Data Quality Risk",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "high_metric_value_low_credibility_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "outcome_metric_production_governance_problem",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "high",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "High outcome metrics do not prove high metric credibility. When KPI pressure shapes data production, QPI must audit how data is produced, interpreted, and used for authority.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "distinguish high metric value from high metric credibility",
        "KPI pressure in Issue domain can produce the data it wants to see",
        "evidence_gap should be explicit"
      ],
      "evidence_gap": [
        "outcome_data_production_mechanism",
        "student_level_verification",
        "employer_verification",
        "coercion_or_compliance_behavior_risk",
        "metric_use_in_authority_expansion"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Audit the production mechanism behind outcome data before using high metrics as proof of institutional health.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
      "title": "Employer Coordination Asset Remains Isolated From Teaching",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "real_external_asset_integration_boundary_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "boundary_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "real_external_asset_with_unproven_learning_integration_and_governance_risk",
      "dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The external employer asset may be real, but it is a boundary mixed case when the asset functions as showcase material or internship proof rather than integrated student capability building.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "not a pure positive contrast case",
        "Problem if only integration path is missing",
        "mixed if proof value displaces learning value"
      ],
      "minimum_integration_evidence": [
        "curriculum_mapping",
        "student_project",
        "assessment_rubric",
        "mentor_input",
        "teacher_integration",
        "portfolio_evidence",
        "employer_feedback",
        "outcome_verification",
        "incentive_alignment"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Ask for the operational bridge from employer asset to curriculum, projects, assessment, and verified learning outcomes.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification",
        "violent_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-007",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
      "title": "Functional Performance Gains Justify Power Expansion Too Quickly",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "asset_recognition_to_authority_transfer_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "asset_recognition_to_authority_transfer",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Recognizing a function's assets or achievements is not the same as transferring system-level authority to that function. Local performance can be maliciously inflated into governance control.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "keep separate from reverse accountability mechanism",
        "malicious_inflation applies",
        "distinguish asset_recognition from authority_transfer"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Do not infer authority transfer from asset recognition; define scope, checks, and evidence standards first.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "malicious_inflation",
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-008",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
      "title": "Survival Strategy Reframes Education As Transactional Output",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "transactional_education_issue_anchor",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "case_level": "umbrella_issue",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Under survival pressure, the organization risks sliding from education capability building into transactional output logic, where employment, revenue, and compliance metrics take over the definition of education value.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "Issue anchor for this group",
        "do not split because 001-007 already carry narrower decompositions",
        "market survival metrics cannot replace education quality"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Govern the value definition before allowing employment, revenue, or compliance metrics to take over institutional identity.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-001",
      "title": "Strategic Target Exceeds Operating Reality",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "target_authenticity_gap_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "capability_and_market_gap_under_inauthentic_target_pressure",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "reusable_pattern": "target_authenticity_gap",
      "summary": "A support-oriented technical function is pushed toward industrialized revenue goals without credible capability, market, resource, and validation bridges.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "distinguish milestone target from terminal target",
        "require bridge evidence",
        "high targets become fraud pressure when no validated bridge exists"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Build staged bridge evidence before accepting the target as an execution mandate.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-002",
      "title": "Equipment-Led Solutionism Without Market Closure",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "equipment_led_solutionism_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "asset_first_solutionism_without_market_or_operator_readiness",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The issue is not equipment selection but substituting asset purchase for demand validation, operator competence, execution standards, safety, and unit economics.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "equipment_led_solutionism",
        "asset_first_solutionism",
        "do_not_treat_as_execution_problem_until_gates_passed"
      ],
      "gate_conditions": [
        "demand_proof",
        "operator_readiness",
        "safety_validation",
        "unit_economics",
        "pilot_result"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Validate demand and operators before equipment; otherwise the equipment is a sunk-cost generator, not capability.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-003",
      "title": "Compliance Shortcut Becomes Structural Constraint",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "shortcut_debt_hard_boundary_issue_anchor",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": false,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "shortcut_debt_meets_hard_boundary",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The organization used Problem-style shortcuts to absorb an Issue-level capability and legitimacy gap until regulation, accidents, audit, or trust creates a hard boundary.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "not merely compliance boundary hardening",
        "shortcut debt",
        "do not add compliance_risk as required QPI field yet"
      ],
      "optional_risk_flags": {
        "compliance_legitimacy_risk": "high",
        "audit_exposure": "high",
        "shortcut_debt": "high"
      },
      "recommended_next_step": "Treat staffing as shortcut debt meeting a hard boundary, not as a simple headcount patch.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-004",
      "title": "Credential Integrity Treated As Mere Usability",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "credential_integrity_policy_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "credential_integrity_treated_as_usability",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "no_personnel_verdict": true,
      "route_to_policy_review_not_person_judgment": true,
      "summary": "QPI should not judge whether a specific person is usable or deceptive; it should identify when credential anomalies expose screening, exception, and risk-ownership governance gaps.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "no personnel verdict",
        "evidence integrity plus compliance order",
        "policy review not person judgment"
      ],
      "evidence_gap": [
        "credential_verification_lineage",
        "exception_policy_unknown",
        "risk_owner_unknown"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Review screening, exception policy, and risk ownership before making convenience-based staffing decisions.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-005",
      "title": "Production Capability Without Acquisition Channel",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "production_without_market_closure_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "market_source_unknown_because_business_purpose_is_misframed_as_production_capacity",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "high",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "For a business actor, production capability without a consumer, acquisition channel, or profit loop is not merely a data question; it is a first-principle business-purpose mismatch.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "not first classified as question in this context",
        "production is not business closure",
        "research context would differ"
      ],
      "minimum_q_to_p_evidence": [
        "problem_owner",
        "primary_purpose",
        "customer_segment",
        "demand_signal",
        "acquisition_channel",
        "delivery_fit",
        "unit_economics"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Clarify the subject's purpose and business loop before treating production capability as viability.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "premature_classification",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "malicious_inflation"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-006",
      "title": "Micro-Intervention Creates Execution Fatigue",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "execution_fatigue_decision_rights_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "execution_fatigue_as_decision_rights_architecture_failure",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Execution fatigue may be violently reduced to low motivation, but QPI must test whether decision rights, role boundaries, and leadership intervention patterns are creating exhaustion.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "distinguish healthy hands-on leadership from destructive micro-control",
        "outsider leading experts versus expert strong leader",
        "avoid person-motivation reduction"
      ],
      "evidence_to_distinguish": [
        "domain_competence",
        "decision_accuracy",
        "autonomy_preservation",
        "feedback_loop",
        "bottleneck_effect",
        "learning_effect",
        "error_ownership",
        "business_fit"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Diagnose decision-rights architecture before blaming execution motivation.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-007",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-007",
      "title": "Inherited Project May Be Hidden Liability",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "inherited_asset_liability_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "inherited_asset_may_hide_operating_liability",
      "dominant_scarcity": "data",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "high",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "medium"
      },
      "reusable_pattern": "asset_or_liability_ambiguity",
      "summary": "An inherited platform or certification may be a genuine asset, but transfer from a stronger unit to a weaker unit is a risk signal until history, cost, responsibility, and prior-owner exit reasons are checked.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "missing transfer due diligence",
        "adverse selection risk",
        "organizational dumping risk translated for review"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Investigate transfer history, operating cost, responsibility boundary, and prior owner exit reason before treating the project as an asset.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "premature_classification",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-008",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-008",
      "title": "Personnel Redeployment Without Legitimate Path",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "personnel_transition_governance_issue_anchor",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "capability_upgrade_requires_legitimate_personnel_transition_path",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Legacy staff mismatch under a new technical direction is not a simple replacement task; it requires lawful, budgeted, capability-oriented transition paths and trust-cost governance.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "keep separate from compliance staffing",
        "requires legal review",
        "avoid overclaiming labor-law conclusions"
      ],
      "minimum_context": [
        "employment_status",
        "contract_terms",
        "performance_record",
        "redeployment_option",
        "training_offer",
        "compensation_budget",
        "consultation_process",
        "compliance_review",
        "operational_need",
        "dignity_and_trust_cost"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Define legal, budget, training, redeployment, and consultation paths before treating staff mismatch as execution-only.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-001",
      "title": "Compliance Risk Packaged As Enrollment Retention",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "compliance_boundary_retention_issue_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "retention_workaround_crosses_compliance_boundary",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A retention workaround becomes Issue-level when it changes the institution's compliance posture, credential trust, audit exposure, and future complaint risk.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "pathway adjustment must obey compliance red lines",
        "retention pressure does not authorize institutional-risk change",
        "all generalized details are safe for digest"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Separate retention problem-solving from compliance judgment before designing any replacement pathway.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "malicious_inflation",
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-002",
      "title": "Physical Capacity Treated As Negotiable Resource",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "capacity_gate_cross_unit_conflict_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "cross_unit_conflict_under_missing_hard_capacity_gate",
      "dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The hard resource gap is physical capacity, but the organizational failure is cross-unit conflict under a missing capacity gate when growth promises require displacing other units.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "simple logistics no-call versus capacity governance call",
        "cross-unit conflict is key failure expression",
        "hard capacity gate needed"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Verify capacity and create cross-unit arbitration before promising growth.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-003",
      "title": "Performance-Backed Role Inflation",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "performance_backed_role_inflation_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_confidence": "medium",
      "classification_note": "performance_backed_role_inflation",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Strong performance may deserve recognition, but it cannot be directly converted into structural authority, title, external representation, or exception rules without accountability design.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "power without accountability is a risk consequence",
        "performance-backed role inflation is the abstraction",
        "include proxy stakeholders lightly"
      ],
      "affected_stakeholders": [
        "future_management",
        "adjacent_units",
        "external_partners"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Define rule-based authority and accountability before granting upgraded status.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-004",
      "title": "Strategic Chain Collapsed Into Front-End Sales",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "inter_viewpoint_chain_vs_sales_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "strategic_object_and_operational_object_are_misaligned",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The execution layer frames the task as lead generation and conversion, while the decision layer frames it as full education-chain strategy and outcome accountability.",
      "classification_by_viewpoint": {
        "execution_layer": {
          "classification": "problem",
          "dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
          "frame": "lead_generation_and_conversion"
        },
        "decision_layer": {
          "classification": "issue",
          "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
          "frame": "full_chain_strategy_and_outcome_accountability"
        },
        "organization_level": {
          "classification": "issue",
          "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
          "frame": "strategic_object_and_operational_object_are_misaligned"
        }
      },
      "routing_notes": [
        "clearest inter_viewpoint_divergence example in this source",
        "do not collapse viewpoints into one operational label"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Separate viewpoint classifications before deciding which frame governs resources.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "malicious_inflation"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-005",
      "title": "Inflated Credential Metrics As Governance Distortion",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "metric_distortion_governance_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "metric_fact_verification_embedded_in_governance_distortion",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "high",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The metric is not just fact scarcity once it is embedded in evaluation pressure, execution-layer reporting, and decision-layer concern about short-termism.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "not question-first in this source",
        "good KPI links long-term goals, real capability, multi-party value, and traceable evidence",
        "credential category need not be further generalized"
      ],
      "governance_remediation_evidence": [
        "metric_used_for_assessment_reporting_compliance_or_resource_competition",
        "metric_decoupled_from_real_delivery_capacity",
        "metric_incentivizes_short_term_number_assembly",
        "metric_benefits_one_unit_while_other_units_absorb_cost",
        "metric_fails_multi_win_alignment",
        "traceable_evidence_chain_missing",
        "metric_fails_to_reflect_student_value_teaching_value_or_org_capability"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Audit metric lineage and governance incentives before accepting the indicator as capability evidence.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-006",
      "title": "Pricing Deadlock Misread As Simple Market Weakness",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "high_ticket_trust_system_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "pricing_deadlock_as_trust_system_failure_in_high_ticket_education_sales",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The pricing deadlock is a surface symptom; in high-ticket education sales, the deeper Issue is whether the organization can build trust through credible promises, verifiable outcomes, and coordinated delivery.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "related owner model APTC is context, not a new repo model",
        "keep as independent sales-system case",
        "legacy pricing creates fairness debt"
      ],
      "related_owner_model": [
        "APTC_trust_conversion_funnel"
      ],
      "inherited_pricing_terms": [
        "legacy_price_value_mismatch",
        "inherited_pricing_constraint",
        "historical_price_anchor_with_fairness_debt"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Analyze the trust system before changing price or using workaround enrollment tactics.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-007",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-007",
      "title": "High-Performing Capability Not Yet Institutionalized",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "non_institutionalized_capability_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "supporting_governance_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "high_performing_capability_not_yet_institutionalized",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The issue is not that organizational capability is privatized, but that high-performing individual or small-team capability has not been institutionalized into transferable, auditable, resilient organizational capability.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "link to role inflation but do not merge",
        "key-person dependency risk",
        "preserve execution energy while institutionalizing capability"
      ],
      "linked_case": "qpi-draft-intl-003",
      "risk_tags": [
        "key_person_dependency",
        "capability_not_institutionalized",
        "continuity_risk"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Create capability capture, succession, transparency, and incentive mechanisms without destroying the team's execution energy.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-008",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-008",
      "title": "Strong External Channel Used To Justify Risky Internal Expansion",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "real_asset_unready_expansion_synthesis_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "real_external_asset_used_as_license_for_unready_internal_expansion",
      "case_level": "synthesis_case",
      "do_not_merge": true,
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A real external channel is an asset, but it becomes contaminated if used to license expansion before internal delivery, compliance, quality, and capacity are ready.",
      "linked_cases": [
        "qpi-draft-intl-001",
        "qpi-draft-intl-002",
        "qpi-draft-intl-006",
        "qpi-draft-intl-007"
      ],
      "risk_tags": [
        "real_asset_implies_safe_expansion",
        "asset_contamination_risk",
        "channel_trust_degradation"
      ],
      "routing_notes": [
        "higher-level synthesis case",
        "real external asset does not mean safe internal expansion",
        "define prohibited uses before scaling"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Define protected-asset boundaries and prohibited internal uses before scaling.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "malicious_inflation",
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-001",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
      "title": "Tax-Preference Goal Becomes Research Identity Simulation",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "research_identity_simulation_umbrella_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "case_level": "umbrella_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "research_identity_simulation_under_tax_preference_pressure",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "linked_cases": [
        "qpi-draft-002",
        "qpi-draft-003",
        "qpi-draft-004",
        "qpi-draft-005",
        "qpi-draft-008"
      ],
      "summary": "The organization lacks real research capability but tries to simulate research identity through people, expenses, patents, papers, and evidence packaging to obtain external preferential status.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "umbrella case for this source",
        "research identity simulation is owner-approved",
        "capability building must be separated from evidence simulation"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Separate legitimate research capability building from identity simulation and compliance red-line risk.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-002",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
      "title": "Research Staff Count Treated As Movable Accounting Data",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "research_capacity_accounting_reduction_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_confidence": "medium",
      "classification_note": "research_capacity_reduced_to_accounting_category",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "requires_compliance_review": true,
      "summary": "The organization has real research staff and cost shortages, but the key QPI risk is violent reduction of research capability and governance into spreadsheet categories.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "not inter-viewpoint divergence",
        "data completeness is not truthfulness",
        "do not output high-confidence legal or tax conclusion"
      ],
      "risk_tags": [
        "research_capacity_reduced_to_accounting_category",
        "data_completeness_is_not_truthfulness",
        "evidence_legitimacy"
      ],
      "evidence_gap": [
        "actual_research_role_evidence",
        "payroll_category_validity",
        "research_contribution_trace"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Verify actual research roles, payroll category validity, and research contribution traces before accepting the metric package.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-003",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
      "title": "Transactional Research Assets Create Audit Fragility",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "transactional_research_asset_subcase",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "evidence_case",
      "case_status": "keep_as_subcase",
      "parent_case": "qpi-draft-001",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "transactional_research_assets_as_research_identity_simulation_mechanism",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "Transactional research assets are a concrete mechanism under the umbrella research-identity simulation case: research evidence is treated as a tradable token rather than trace of real capability.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "keep as subcase rather than delete",
        "transactional evidence is not real capability",
        "parent is qpi-draft-001"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Check whether research evidence is authentic capability trace or transactional identity simulation.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "tool_solutionism",
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-004",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
      "title": "Ranking Anxiety Converts Research Into Purchasable Metrics",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "ranking_metric_reduction_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "research_value_reduced_to_ranking_inputs",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "primary_risk": "violent_reduction",
      "secondary_risk": "malicious_inflation",
      "selector_trap": [
        "how_to_improve_ranking_quickly",
        "metric_improvement_without_capability_improvement"
      ],
      "summary": "Ranking pressure becomes Issue-level when research value, culture, talent development, and knowledge production are reduced to purchasable, reportable, sprintable metric inputs.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "violent reduction is primary",
        "quick ranking improvement can be a selector trap",
        "ranking cannot define research value"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Route quick-ranking pressure to governance review when it rewards metric improvement without capability improvement.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "malicious_inflation",
        "tool_solutionism",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-005",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
      "title": "High-Level Talent Becomes Role-Mismatched Display Asset",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "high_level_talent_role_governance_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "case_status": "keep_independent",
      "linked_to": "qpi-draft-001",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "mixed",
      "classification_note": "role_governance_issue_with_work_design_problem_inside",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "proxy_stakeholders": [
        "high_level_talent"
      ],
      "summary": "High-level talent is not merely a credential asset. Without role design, platform, and meaningful work, talent acquisition becomes display consumption rather than capability building.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "keep independent but link to umbrella case",
        "include high_level_talent proxy stakeholder",
        "talent-as-indicator reduction"
      ],
      "risk_tags": [
        "talent_as_indicator_reduction",
        "role_mismatch",
        "capability_underutilization",
        "retention_risk"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Design role, platform, and task fit before treating the hire as research capability.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-006",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
      "title": "Facility Capacity Risk Misread As Expansion Logistics",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "hard_capacity_constraint_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "boundary_case",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "problem",
      "classification_note": "hard_capacity_problem_with_visible_downstream_governance_risk",
      "dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
      "governance_risk": "medium",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "low",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "medium"
      },
      "summary": "This is primarily a hard-capacity Problem: physical space, beds, facilities, and capacity cannot be solved by administrative command, though downstream governance risk is visible.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "related to international capacity case but classified lower",
        "hard constraint cannot be solved by command",
        "may escalate to mixed if promises and displacement dominate"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Verify capacity and commitments, then solve through investment, cap, delay, redesign, or lower commitments.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "not_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-007",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
      "title": "Safety Responsibility Vacuum Covered By Emergency Command",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "accountability_vacuum_q_as_i_calibration_case",
      "selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
      "classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "responsibility_question_reveals_accountability_architecture_gap",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "A seemingly small responsibility question reveals an accountability architecture gap when safety tasks have no stable owner, evidence trail, process, or escalation route.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "Q-like responsibility question is actually Issue",
        "command substitution for process",
        "include despite small slice"
      ],
      "risk_tags": [
        "command_substitution_for_process",
        "safety_accountability_vacuum",
        "Q_as_I_trap"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Map owner, evidence trail, process, and escalation rule before treating the task as personal assignment.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "premature_classification",
        "single-cause_reduction"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "intra_frame_mixed"
    },
    {
      "case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-008",
      "source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
      "title": "Compliance Risk Defined Only By Immediate Penalty",
      "owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
      "owner_approved_for_digest": true,
      "digest_role": "punishment_state_vs_integrity_state_regression_case",
      "regression_candidate": "high_priority",
      "case_status": "keep_independent",
      "linked_to": "qpi-draft-001",
      "classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
      "is_provisional": true,
      "classification": "issue",
      "classification_note": "punishment_state_vs_integrity_state",
      "dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
      "scarcity_profile": {
        "data_scarcity": "medium",
        "path_or_resource_scarcity": "low",
        "consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
      },
      "summary": "The internal punishment-status frame treats no penalty as low risk; the integrity-status frame treats absence of immediate punishment as insufficient evidence of legitimacy.",
      "routing_notes": [
        "keep independent and link to umbrella case",
        "absence of penalty is not legitimacy",
        "compliance minimum-punishment game"
      ],
      "risk_tags": [
        "punishment_state_frame",
        "absence_of_penalty_is_not_legitimacy",
        "compliance_minimum_game"
      ],
      "recommended_next_step": "Separate penalty-status inquiry from integrity-status review and define substantive compliance criteria.",
      "misclassification_risk": [
        "violent_reduction",
        "single-cause_reduction",
        "premature_classification"
      ],
      "qpi_complexity_pattern": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
      "viewpoint_summary": "Inter-viewpoint divergence is retained from owner-reviewed case notes; reviewers should inspect summary, routing_notes, and source draft case before using this case as a regression oracle."
    }
  ]
}
