# QPI Case Drafts: Year-End Review Planning Function

status: owner_reviewed

owner_review_source: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例审阅\QPI提炼审核\year-end-review-development-office.cases-GPT.md`

owner_review_note: Owner review completed for all eight draft cases. Personal or cultural CT diagnosis notes are translated into QPI routing fields such as governance failure, target-resource inconsistency, compliance authenticity risk, role-authority mismatch, incentive credibility collapse, and low-cost indicator survival. This file is ready for incremental digest / calibration / selected regression processing.

source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

source_note: Owner-provided raw organizational material. These drafts are anonymized and generalized for QPI review. Real or potentially identifying people, departments, institutions, timestamps, locations, titles, and exact numeric details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive anchors from the source are intentionally omitted. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data.

anonymization_note: People are represented as roles such as `decision_maker`, `execution_lead`, `strategy_staff`, `functional_department`, and `frontline_staff`. The organization is represented as `the organization`; the department is represented as `planning function`. Sensitive details are generalized as `facility metric gap`, `staffing credential metric gap`, `compliance workaround risk`, `incentive backlash`, and `operational continuity risk`.

## Case qpi-draft-001: Hard Resource Gap Disguised As Compliance Documentation

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: hard_resource_gap_disguised_as_documentation_calibration_case

regression_candidate: high_priority
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization faces a facility metric gap against an external compliance target and needs a way to make the submitted indicators appear adequate.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization as framed by `decision_maker` and translated by `execution_lead`. The subject is not a neutral analyst asking what the rule says; it is an accountable organization under external review pressure, with limited willingness to invest in physical resources and strong pressure to pass the gate.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a year-end review and planning discussion for a `planning function`. The function is responsible for turning external compliance requirements into internal plans and evidence packages. The broader context is a survival-level compliance milestone where the organization wants to preserve status while minimizing new resource commitments.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The organization expects to satisfy external facility-related requirements through planning, packaging, and administrative coordination.
- Reality: The underlying physical resource base has a material gap that cannot be solved by renaming, relabeling, or paperwork alone.
- Gap summary: A hard resource shortage is being reframed as a documentation problem, creating `compliance workaround risk`.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to reinterpret or reclassify existing facilities so that reported indicators look closer to the required threshold. This path avoids physical investment but increases audit and credibility risk.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It begins as a Problem about how to meet a facility metric under constraints. It shifts into an Issue because the proposed solution changes the organization's relationship to compliance, truthfulness, risk exposure, and long-term auditability.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: high
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

For the same organization in the same compliance scenario, there is both path/resource scarcity and order scarcity. The hard resource gap creates a path problem, while the workaround creates a governance and legitimacy problem.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires managing audit authenticity, regulatory exposure, internal pressure, physical resource limits, and whether short-term indicator repair will damage long-term institutional legitimacy.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- premature_classification
- single-cause_reduction

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- classification_note: path_resource_trigger_with_compliance_governance_failure
- recommended_next_step: Treat the facility metric gap as a P/I mixed case, separate legitimate remediation paths from compliance workaround risk, and keep dominant scarcity on governance/order rather than the triggering physical shortage.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should the dominant scarcity be `consensus_order` because of compliance workaround risk, or `path_resource` because the physical gap is the triggering constraint? [answered: keep `consensus_order`; physical shortage is the trigger, governance failure is the QPI scarcity]
- Should this case become a selector calibration input for "hard resource gap disguised as documentation problem"? [answered: yes]
- Is the draft sufficiently anonymized, or should the source relation to an external compliance milestone be further generalized? [answered: sufficient for internal model-library review; future public use should generalize the qualification gate further]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`; do not change it to `path_resource`.
  - Physical shortage is the trigger and keeps `path_or_resource_scarcity: high`.
  - The QPI case centers on governance/order scarcity: the organization converts a hard resource gap into documentation and compliance packaging risk.
- Translate upstream CT diagnosis into QPI routing language.
  - Personal pathology or organizational culture notes are not QPI classification fields.
  - QPI digest wording should use governance failure, compliance authenticity risk, and auditability risk.
- Use as selector calibration for `hard_resource_gap_disguised_as_documentation_problem`.
- Keep current anonymization for internal review. For external publication, generalize the external qualification gate and remove any remaining concrete source anchors.

## Case qpi-draft-002: Credential Metric Repair Creates Operational Continuity Risk

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: credential_metric_operational_continuity_regression_case

regression_candidate: high_priority
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization needs to improve a staffing credential metric for external compliance.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization under `decision_maker` pressure, with `execution_lead` responsible for converting the target into staffing action. `frontline_staff` and `functional_department` appear as affected system parts rather than decision owners.

### 3. Scenario Context

The scenario is a planning and staffing adjustment discussion in which non-core service and administrative roles are evaluated primarily by whether they help the organization satisfy a credential metric. The planning function is pulled from strategic diagnosis into indicator assembly.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Replacing or reclassifying staff can improve a credential indicator and make the organization appear stronger.
- Reality: Credential fit does not equal functional fit. Replacing experienced operational staff with credential-matched but role-mismatched staff may weaken daily operations and increase churn.
- Gap summary: A staffing quality issue is violently reduced to a single credential indicator.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source describes an aggressive replacement or reclassification logic: roles that require continuity, practical experience, or trust are forced into a credential-centered standard. The method may improve the table but damage the operating system.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It starts as a Problem about how to close a staffing credential metric gap. It becomes an Issue because the chosen method creates role mismatch, morale damage, labor conflict risk, and operational continuity risk.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: medium
- path_or_resource_scarcity: high
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The same subject has simultaneous resource/path scarcity and governance scarcity: it lacks enough metric-qualified staff, but the repair path undermines role boundaries and operational stability.

### 9. Governance Load

High. This case requires balancing compliance metrics, role-function fit, morale, operational memory, turnover, and the legitimacy of using people as indicator carriers.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- single-cause_reduction
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- classification_note: credential_metric_problem_escalated_into_staffing_governance_issue
- recommended_next_step: Frame operational continuity as the summary focus while preserving role mismatch, morale risk, labor risk, and credential-count reduction as the mechanism.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this be treated as the clearest example of `violent_reduction` in this source? [answered: yes, one of the clearest examples]
- Should the QPI case emphasize role mismatch, morale damage, compliance optics, or operational continuity? [answered: operational continuity as summary focus; role mismatch and morale/labor risk as mechanism]
- Is `classification: issue` more appropriate than `classification: mixed` once the staffing path is chosen? [answered: yes]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep this as one of the clearest `violent_reduction` examples from the source.
- Promote `operational_continuity` as the summary focus.
  - Preserve role mismatch, morale/labor risk, and credential-count reduction as the causal mechanism.
- Change QPI judgment to `classification: issue`.
  - The credential metric gap is a P trigger.
  - The selected staffing path creates governance, role-boundary, continuity, and legitimacy risk.
- Use as high-priority regression.

## Case qpi-draft-003: Incentive Backlash Misread As Lack of Effort

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: performance_decline_incentive_backlash_calibration_case
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that performance or output indicators are declining and `decision_maker` interprets the decline as insufficient effort or insufficient pressure.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization as seen by two different internal positions. `decision_maker` frames the problem as willpower and output discipline. `execution_lead` and `frontline_staff` experience it as an incentive mismatch where the required behavior imposes unrecovered costs or losses.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a performance discussion where the organization wants higher externally visible output while maintaining tight cost control. The planning function surfaces the contradiction between aspiration and incentive design.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Staff should increase output when the organization demands it or when ranking/status pressure rises.
- Reality: Existing policy creates `incentive backlash`; rational staff reduce effort when the required behavior is economically or professionally unrewarding.
- Gap summary: A systemic incentive design problem is misread as individual laziness or insufficient mobilization.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to restart pressure, exhortation, or low-cost incentive signals without fixing the underlying cost-reward mismatch. This may briefly increase compliance speech but is unlikely to restore real output.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

I misread as P. The decision frame treats the issue as a manageable execution problem: "make people work harder." The source frames it as an Issue: incentives, trust, cost allocation, and long-term response have already changed.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: medium
- path_or_resource_scarcity: medium
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`inter_viewpoint_divergence`

Different roles classify the same decline differently. `decision_maker` sees a Problem of mobilization; `frontline_staff` experience an Issue of unfair incentive structure; `planning function` sees a system loop. Owner review notes that an organization-level rewrite could also be `intra_frame_mixed`; this draft keeps the multi-perspective form because that is the stronger selector calibration value.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires redesigning incentive credibility, cost coverage, trust, and future behavior rather than issuing a one-time execution command.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- single-cause_reduction
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: multi_perspective
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Separate output symptom from incentive mechanism, then ask which role's frame is being routed: mobilization problem, incentive redesign issue, or evidence question about actual causes.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this be classified as `inter_viewpoint_divergence` because roles see different problems, or `intra_frame_mixed` because the organization has simultaneous incentive and path gaps? [answered: organization-level rewrite could be `intra_frame_mixed`; keep current multi-role case as `inter_viewpoint_divergence` for calibration strength]
- Is the main misframing `violent_reduction` from incentive structure to personal effort? [answered: yes; rooted in organizational culture and institutional design]
- Should this be a strong selector calibration example for "performance decline with incentive backlash"? [answered: yes]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep the current multi-role form as `inter_viewpoint_divergence` for selector calibration.
  - Owner notes that an organization-level rewrite could be `intra_frame_mixed`, but the strongest calibration value here is that different roles see the same decline differently.
- Mark the main misframing as `violent_reduction`: incentive structure and institutional design are reduced to individual effort.
- Use as strong selector calibration for `performance_decline_with_incentive_backlash`.

## Case qpi-draft-004: Strategic Planning Function Reduced To Indicator Packaging

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: strategic_function_role_authority_mismatch_case
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the `planning function` is criticized for not providing enough innovation, strategy, or concrete implementation value.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject can be framed from multiple positions. `decision_maker` sees a weak function that should deliver usable progress. `strategy_staff` sees a strategic function that requires resources, trust, and coordination authority. `execution_lead` sees a function that must translate strategy into compliance packages under cost pressure.

### 3. Scenario Context

The scenario is a year-end review where the planning function is expected to speak the language of strategy but is evaluated mainly by its usefulness in meeting immediate compliance and indicator goals.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The planning function should generate strategic growth, external collaboration, and innovation.
- Reality: It lacks the authority, resources, and trust needed to implement those ambitions, and is instead pulled into packaging and target repair.
- Gap summary: A strategic function is assigned strategic responsibility but denied strategic operating conditions.

### 5. Attempted Paths

`strategy_staff` attempts to propose external resource routes or larger strategic narratives. `decision_maker` rejects resource-intensive paths and reasserts the minimum-cost requirement. The function then risks becoming either ceremonial or defensive.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P/I -> I. The surface problem might be a Problem of poor planning quality. With context, it becomes an Issue about role authority, trust, resource constraints, and whether the organization actually wants strategy or only compliant indicators.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: medium
- path_or_resource_scarcity: high
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`inter_viewpoint_divergence`

The same "planning function underperformance" surface problem is classified differently by role: competence problem for `decision_maker`, resource/path problem for `strategy_staff`, and governance issue for a system analyst.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The organization must decide whether the planning function has real strategic authority or only responsibility for compliance packaging. Without that decision, every proposed path will be judged by incompatible standards.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: multi_perspective
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- classification_note: strategic_role_without_strategic_operating_conditions
- recommended_next_step: Use this as a QPI sample for role-authority mismatch: the function is blamed for strategy while governed as a packaging unit. Keep middle-management capability as a local P component, not the main classification.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this be classified as `issue` rather than `mixed` because the role contradiction dominates? [answered: yes; organizational culture/order problem dominates, with local P components around middle-leadership capability]
- Does the case need a separate viewpoint table for `decision_maker`, `strategy_staff`, and `execution_lead`? [answered: no; preserve brief role contrast only]
- Should the anonymized role `planning function` be made even broader for future publication safety? [answered: internal review can keep it; future public use may generalize to `strategic support function` or `functional planning unit`]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Change classification to `issue`.
  - Middle-leadership capability can remain a local P component.
  - The dominant scarcity is role-authority mismatch: the organization demands strategic output while denying strategic operating conditions.
- Do not add a full role-viewpoint table.
  - Preserve only concise role contrast needed for QPI routing.
  - Person-level diagnosis belongs outside this QPI case.
- Keep `planning function` for internal review. For public use, generalize to `strategic support function` or `functional planning unit`.

## Case qpi-draft-005: Low-Cost Ambition Creates Physical-Law Contradictions

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: low_cost_ambition_pattern_level_issue_case
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is how to achieve ambitious organizational outcomes under tight budget and resource constraints.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is `decision_maker` as the owner of targets and cost limits, with `planning function` and `execution_lead` expected to make the contradiction operationally feasible.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case occurs across several planning themes: external cooperation, facility readiness, staffing credentials, and performance indicators. The repeated pattern is "raise the standard while minimizing the investment."

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The organization can obtain high-level outcomes through administrative pressure, packaging, and internal compression.
- Reality: Several desired outcomes require real exchanges, physical capacity, credible incentives, or role-compatible talent. These cannot be created by command alone.
- Gap summary: The organization treats resource-dependent outcomes as if they were compliance wording or discipline problems.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The repeated attempted path is cost suppression plus command pressure: demand external cooperation without meaningful exchange, demand output without adequate incentive, demand capacity without physical expansion, and demand talent quality without role-market fit.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. Each item can look like a separate Problem, but the repeated pattern reveals a deeper Issue: the decision logic itself generates contradictions that downstream actors must absorb.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: high
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

Within the same organizational frame, path/resource scarcity and order scarcity reinforce each other. The path gap is not accidental; it is produced by the governing cost doctrine.

### 9. Governance Load

High. This requires confronting target-resource consistency, investment boundaries, credibility of command, and whether downstream functions are being asked to absorb impossible contradictions.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- malicious_inflation
- violent_reduction
- tool_solutionism
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- case_level: pattern_level
- subcases: qpi-draft-001, qpi-draft-002, qpi-draft-003, qpi-draft-004
- not_first_wave_regression: true
- recommended_next_step: Treat the pattern as an Issue about target-resource governance, not as a list of independent execution blockers. Use as digest / calibration rather than first-wave regression.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Is this case too broad, or is it useful as a meta-case for the whole organizational slice? [answered: useful as whole-slice meta-case]
- Should QPI allow a "pattern-level Issue" extracted from multiple surface Problems in one source? [answered: yes, when the surface problems share the same generating mechanism]
- Should this case be merged with the compliance workaround and staffing credential cases, or kept as a higher-level calibration sample? [answered: keep as higher-level digest / calibration sample; do not merge into narrow regression cases]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Retain as a whole-slice meta-case / `pattern-level Issue`.
- QPI may extract a pattern-level Issue from multiple surface problems when they share a generating mechanism.
  - Here the mechanism is `low-cost ambition / target-resource inconsistency / downstream contradiction absorption`.
- Do not merge this into qpi-draft-001 or qpi-draft-002.
  - Narrow cases are better regression candidates.
  - This case is better suited to digest and calibration.
- Mark as `not_first_wave_regression: true`.

## Case qpi-draft-006: Data Completeness Masks Truthfulness Gap

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: data_completeness_truthfulness_gap_regression_case

regression_candidate: high_priority
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization needs complete and favorable records for external review, including facility, staffing, performance, and planning materials.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the `planning function` as a data assembler and risk translator. It sits between `decision_maker` pressure, `execution_lead` tactics, and external review expectations.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source contains multiple instances where indicators can be made to look complete while the underlying reality remains unstable or misleading. The planning function becomes the place where mismatch between reports and operations is either surfaced or hidden.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: If the data package is complete and internally consistent, the organization can pass the review.
- Reality: The data package may be internally complete while externally fragile because the underlying facts are physically, operationally, or behaviorally weak.
- Gap summary: Data completeness is mistaken for truthfulness and audit resilience.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The organization appears to build a coherent evidence package around renamed resources, reclassified staff, and performance narratives. This can reduce short-term data gaps but increase risk when auditors inspect the underlying reality.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q/P -> I. It begins as a data or documentation question: "What information is missing?" It becomes an Issue once the problem is whether the evidence corresponds to real, stable operations.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: medium
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The same planning frame contains a data scarcity problem and a governance problem. The missing data is not just unknown information; it reflects contested or unstable reality.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The organization needs audit authenticity, evidence discipline, internal truth reporting, and escalation rules when data packaging diverges from operational reality.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- tool_solutionism
- violent_reduction
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- evidence_integrity_gap: high
- audit_authenticity_risk: high
- truthfulness_gap: high
- recommended_next_step: Run evidence authenticity audit before treating the case as a resource-planning problem.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be used to test QPI's ability to distinguish "missing data" from "untrusted data"? [answered: yes]
- Should the recommended next step be evidence audit rather than resource planning? [answered: yes; resource planning may follow, but authenticity audit comes first]
- Is `data_scarcity: medium` correct, or should it be `low` because the facts are known but politically inconvenient? [answered: change to `low`; the gap is evidence integrity/truthfulness, not missing facts]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Use this as a strong regression case for distinguishing `missing data` from `untrusted data`.
- Change `data_scarcity` to `low`.
  - The core facts are mostly known but politically or organizationally inconvenient.
  - The scarcity is evidence integrity, truthfulness, and audit authenticity.
- Recommended next step is evidence authenticity audit before resource planning.
- Add digest signals: `evidence_integrity_gap: high`, `audit_authenticity_risk: high`, and `truthfulness_gap: high`.

## Case qpi-draft-007: Execution Lead As Translator Of Impossible Commands

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: role_boundary_workaround_normalization_supporting_case
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is how middle execution converts high-pressure directives into operational action when the directives conflict with resource limits or compliance reality.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is `execution_lead` as a translator between `decision_maker` demands and implementation reality. This role may possess the best data but limited authority to challenge the premise.

### 3. Scenario Context

In the organizational slice, `execution_lead` repeatedly appears as the person who knows operational constraints, signals some risk, and then turns the chosen direction into executable workaround or enforcement.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Middle execution should make leadership directives feasible and keep the organization moving.
- Reality: When directives are internally contradictory, execution becomes a conversion layer that may normalize workaround risk, suppress professional resistance, and transfer damage downward.
- Gap summary: Operational competence becomes complicit adaptation when the governance premise is broken.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The attempted path is pragmatic translation: identify gaps, propose packaging or enforcement moves, and execute once the top-level decision is fixed. This keeps the system moving but may deepen the underlying Issue.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It begins as a Problem of execution under constraints. It becomes an Issue about role ethics, authority boundaries, risk ownership, and the organization's inability to feed bad news upward.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: medium
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

With the subject fixed as `execution_lead`, the case is primarily a role-boundary governance issue. It may still serve as an auxiliary multi-viewpoint sample because different roles evaluate the same behavior differently, but its strongest use is not `inter_viewpoint_divergence`.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires boundary rules for escalation, refusal, risk documentation, and whether implementation roles should be evaluated by compliance with command or by protection of system viability.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- premature_classification
- single-cause_reduction

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: role_contextual
- evidence_status: owner_confirmed_from_interviews
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- primary_risk: normalization_of_workaround / complicity_in_workaround
- secondary_condition: lack_of_escalation_channel
- recommended_next_step: Use this case to test whether QPI can identify governance scarcity when a competent executor converts impossible directives into normalized workaround action.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this role-level case be kept, or is it too interpretive without more owner confirmation? [answered: keep; owner has cross-checked through multiple participant conversations]
- Is the main risk "complicity in workaround" or "lack of escalation channel"? [answered: complicity/normalization of workaround; lack of escalation channel is a condition]
- Should this become a calibration sample for `inter_viewpoint_divergence`? [answered: auxiliary only; stronger use is role-boundary governance with fixed execution-lead subject]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep the role-level case.
  - Owner has cross-checked the pattern through multiple participant conversations.
  - Mark `evidence_status: owner_confirmed_from_interviews`.
- Main risk is `normalization_of_workaround / complicity_in_workaround`.
  - Lack of escalation channel is a condition, not the primary risk.
- Use as role-boundary governance support.
  - It can support `inter_viewpoint_divergence`, but the stronger fixed-subject classification is `role_contextual / issue / consensus_order / not_mixed`.

## Case qpi-draft-008: Low-Cost Indicator Survival Cannibalizes Real Capability

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: umbrella_low_cost_indicator_survival_issue_case
source_path: `[redacted external source path: owner-provided organizational CT slice]`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is how the organization can pass a high-stakes external review while also maintaining its stated mission and internal operating health.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the whole organization under existential review pressure. `decision_maker`, `planning function`, `execution_lead`, and `frontline_staff` all participate in different roles, but the frame is organization-level survival.

### 3. Scenario Context

The slice shows the organization treating the external review milestone as an overriding mission. This pressure reorganizes priorities: indicator appearance, cost control, staffing numbers, and reporting coherence dominate over educational or operational substance.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Passing the external milestone should validate organizational development.
- Reality: The effort to pass the milestone exposes and amplifies internal low-investment governance failures that damage real operating capability.
- Gap summary: External indicator pressure is a trigger, not the root cause; low-cost indicator survival cannibalizes real capability.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The organization attempts to optimize indicator packages, staffing optics, facility records, and performance narratives under severe cost constraints. These moves may produce short-term apparent progress while increasing long-term fragility.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Multiple P cases -> system-level I. Individual gaps in facilities, staffing, incentives, and planning appear solvable one by one. Together they form an Issue: a negative reinforcing loop where short-term indicator repair worsens long-term capability.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: high
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The same organization has simultaneous path scarcity and governance scarcity. The resource gaps are real, but the deeper issue is that the governing objective is forcing destructive short-term substitutions.

### 9. Governance Load

Very high. The case requires deciding how to balance survival pressure, truthful reporting, mission integrity, investment constraints, staff stability, and long-term capability.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- single-cause_reduction
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- future_ct_relevance: true
- current_scope: QPI case library only
- recommended_next_step: Treat this as the umbrella organization-level Issue and use the narrower cases as subcases. Do not route to future CT work in this round.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this umbrella case be retained, or should only the narrower pathology cases be promoted later? [answered: retain as umbrella organization-level Issue / digest anchor]
- Is "indicator survival cannibalizes mission capability" the correct anonymized abstraction? [answered: directionally correct, but revise to `low-cost indicator survival cannibalizes real capability`; external pressure exposes and amplifies internal low-investment governance failures]
- Should this case be linked to future CT diagnosis model work rather than only QPI? [answered: not in this round; mark only as future relevance while keeping current scope QPI]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Retain as an umbrella organization-level Issue and digest anchor.
  - Do not let it replace narrower regression cases such as 001, 002, 003, and 006.
- Revise abstraction from external-pressure causality to internal-governance causality.
  - External review pressure is a trigger and accelerator.
  - Internal low-investment, high-pressure, formalistic governance is the generating mechanism.
  - Preferred abstraction: `low-cost indicator survival cannibalizes real capability`.
- Do not route into future CT work in this round.
  - Mark `future_ct_relevance: true` only as a note; current scope remains QPI.
