# QPI Case Drafts: Disappointment Emotional Isolation

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\disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases-GPT.md`

owner_review_note: Owner review completed for all eight draft cases. This file is ready for incremental digest / calibration / selected regression processing. QPI remains a front routing and misframing-diagnostic model, not a psychological intervention model.

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

source_note: Owner-provided raw material. These drafts paraphrase and restructure the source into QPI review cases. They are not clinical assessments and should not be promoted to JSON until owner review.

## Case qpi-draft-001: Same Surface Term, Different Mechanisms

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: selector_calibration_multi_perspective_mechanism_ambiguity

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface phrase "disappointment emotional isolation" appears to name one phenomenon, but the source separates at least two frames: passive emotional numbness and active cognitive withdrawal.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject may be a person reflecting on their own relational withdrawal, a reader seeking conceptual clarity, or an analyst trying to distinguish mechanisms. The experience level is unknown unless the case specifies whether the subject is seeking vocabulary, self-regulation, or model building.

### 3. Scenario Context

The context is psychological-relational interpretation: repeated disappointment in important relationships may lead either to reduced felt response or to deliberate boundary-setting. The same surface description can therefore point to different underlying frames.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: A single label should clarify the state.
- Reality: The label compresses distinct mechanisms with different intervention implications.
- Gap summary: Naming the phenomenon is insufficient because the frame depends on whether the subject cannot feel, can feel but withdraws, or is using the label to organize a relationship boundary.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source attempts to split the phrase into mechanism types before applying QPI. It also warns against treating the phrase as a standalone diagnosis or moral judgment.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

The frame can shift from Q to P/I. At first it looks like a Q: "What does this phrase mean?" Once the subject asks how the state is maintained, generalized, or governed in relationships, it becomes P/I mixed or Issue.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`inter_viewpoint_divergence`

The same phrase can be classified differently depending on whether the subject is asking for conceptual definition, self-management steps, or long-term relational governance.

### 9. Governance Load

The governance load is medium to high when the label affects boundaries, help-seeking, self-interpretation, and relationship decisions. It is low only when the task is limited to vocabulary clarification.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- premature_classification
- single-cause_reduction
- over_pathologizing
- violent_reduction

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: multi_perspective
- is_provisional: true
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: mixed
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Clarify whether the subject needs definition, self-regulation, relational boundary design, or long-term governance before assigning a Q/P/I route.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this be treated primarily as a QPI multi-perspective sample rather than an intra-frame mixed sample?
- Should the QPI output require a mechanism distinction before any route recommendation?
- Is "passive numbness vs active withdrawal" a required preprocessing distinction for future psychological-relational cases?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Treat primarily as `multi_perspective / inter_viewpoint_divergence`, not `intra_frame_mixed`.
  - The same surface term can route differently depending on subject position, goal, and responsibility scope.
  - In the source context, the owner is analyzing an external psychological-content frame and its misframing risks, not simply asking for a neutral definition.
- Require mechanism distinction before route recommendation when a surface label compresses different mechanisms.
  - Mechanism distinction means identifying whether the label points to passive numbness, active cognitive withdrawal, both, or insufficient context.
  - QPI should not make a clinical diagnosis or intervention plan.
- Do not make "passive numbness vs active withdrawal" a universal required field for all psychological-relational cases.
  - Use the broader rule: if a surface label may compress different mechanisms, mark `mechanism_ambiguity` before routing.

## Case qpi-draft-002: I Domain Misread As a Label Question

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: label_question_false_positive_trap

regression_candidate: high_priority

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

A subject may ask whether their relational withdrawal has a named psychological label.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is likely a self-reflective owner trying to understand a recurring relational pattern. The responsibility scope is not only learning a concept, but deciding how the concept should affect self-understanding, boundaries, and future action.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source treats the phenomenon as a psychological-relational system involving expectation, response history, self-explanation, defense, relationship patterns, and current life context.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: A correct label will settle the question.
- Reality: A label can explain one layer while hiding the system dynamics that keep the pattern stable.
- Gap summary: The subject may be seeking identity certainty through a Q-shaped question, while the actual work requires long-term framing and calibration.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source names several explanatory models but rejects using any one of them as a final single-cause answer.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

The case starts as Q: "What is this?" It shifts to I when the label becomes part of the subject's identity, relational decisions, and self-governance system.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

The question may include a Q-shaped label component, but once the label organizes identity, relationship boundaries, help-seeking, and future action, the QPI classification is primarily an Issue. Treat this as `issue_with_Q_component` in prose, not as a separate enum value.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The subject must manage the cost and benefit of the explanatory label, prevent identity freezing, and decide what kinds of external support or self-regulation are appropriate.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- premature_classification
- single-cause_reduction
- over_pathologizing

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Treat the label as a provisional map, then ask what pattern is recurring, what it protects, what it costs, and what context is needed before choosing an intervention route.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should the dominant route be Issue rather than mixed once the subject is using the label to organize identity and relationships?
- What minimum context would distinguish a pure Q concept lookup from an I-domain self-framing case?
- Should this become a selector false-positive trap for "what is X" questions that are actually identity/governance cases?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- If the label is already organizing identity, self-explanation, relationship boundaries, and future action, the dominant route should be `issue`.
  - The label has a Q component, but Q is no longer the dominant scarcity.
  - Use prose note `issue_with_Q_component`.
- Minimum context needed to distinguish pure Q lookup from I-domain self-framing:
  - problem_owner;
  - label_use;
  - decision_stake;
  - recurrence;
  - desired_output.
- Use as a conditional "what is X" false-positive trap.
  - Not every concept or label question is P or I.
  - Escalate only when the label affects identity, relationship decisions, self-pathologizing, or long-term governance.

## Case qpi-draft-003: Single-Cause Attribution Compresses a System

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: single_factor_totalization_regression_case

regression_candidate: high_priority

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The subject asks whether one source, such as childhood experience, family relationship, attachment style, or social pressure, explains the current isolation pattern.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is a person or analyst trying to locate causality. The responsibility scope may range from understanding a pattern to choosing an intervention or assigning blame.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source argues that psychological-relational patterns are coupled systems. Multiple models may each explain part of the pattern, but no single factor should be treated as the complete cause.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Finding the main cause will make the problem tractable.
- Reality: The pattern may be maintained by interacting histories, interpretations, learned predictions, boundaries, pressures, and current relationship conditions.
- Gap summary: A single-cause explanation can make an Issue look like a solvable Problem or a finished Question.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source reviews several attribution paths and criticizes single-point, moral, and intervention-as-cause explanations.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

The frame shifts from Q/P to I. It may begin as "What caused this?" or "How do I fix this?", but the source reframes the task as maintaining and recalibrating a dynamic system.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

Within one subject frame, the same case contains evidence gaps, intervention uncertainty, and governance load. It is not merely multiple observers disagreeing.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The subject must avoid blame compression, preserve explanatory plurality, and decide which factor is actionable at the current stage without claiming it is the only cause.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- single_factor_totalization
- over_pathologizing
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Require a multi-factor maintenance map and separate cause, trigger, maintaining condition, and current action lever before recommending a route.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should QPI explicitly mark "single-cause reduction" as a subtype of violent reduction?
- Should this case be used to test that QPI does not output a single definitive cause when the source provides coupled mechanisms?
- What owner-approved language should be used to distinguish explanatory usefulness from causal finality?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep the case, but avoid the overbroad rule "all single-cause attribution is wrong."
  - Rename the risk to `single_factor_totalization` or `single_cause_totalization`.
  - QPI should prevent a single factor from being treated as the complete causal closure when the source already shows coupled mechanisms.
  - In bounded P cases, a single high-weight factor can still be a valid current lever.
- Use as a regression case with this target:
  - Do not forbid high-weight factor identification.
  - Prevent QPI from outputting a single definitive root cause when coupled mechanisms are already present.
  - Require distinction between trigger, maintaining condition, high-weight factor, current action lever, and causal totality.
- Owner-approved language:
  - "This factor has explanatory usefulness, but it is not causal finality."
  - "It may be a high-weight factor or current lever, not the complete cause."
  - "It can be prioritized in this context, but it cannot replace the system maintenance map."

## Case qpi-draft-004: Intervention Framed as a One-Time Solution

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: one_time_solution_misroute_regression_case

regression_candidate: high_priority

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The subject asks how to reduce or fix emotional isolation.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is likely the person experiencing the pattern or someone advising them. The responsibility scope includes selecting actions without pretending the issue can be permanently solved in one step.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source reframes intervention from finding a cure to managing isolation intensity, object, benefit, cost, and generalization over time.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: There should be a method or treatment plan that removes the isolation.
- Reality: The phenomenon may require ongoing calibration of expectations, boundaries, investment, and relational experiments.
- Gap summary: The problem is not "which solution works once" but "how to govern a protective pattern that can become overgeneralized."

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source considers external intervention, self-adjustment, and relational experience, while arguing that the goal is not a single answer but a self-governance system.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

The frame shifts from P to I. It begins as a path problem but becomes an Issue because the relevant actions change with relationship context, risk, feedback, and stage.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

The subject may later extract bounded local P tasks, but the QPI classification itself is centered on ongoing governance rather than a one-time fix.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The subject must continuously calibrate when isolation is protective, when it is costly, and when external support is useful.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- tool_solutionism
- malicious_inflation
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- recommended_next_step: Route as Issue. Do not design psychological intervention; first decide whether a bounded local P subtask has enough actor, object, local goal, risk boundary, feedback, reversibility, and non-terminal framing.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should "cannot be solved once, can be governed over time" be a standard Issue signal?
- Should this case become a regression sample for preventing QPI from over-routing psychological-relational questions to Problem?
- What minimum actionability is required before recommending a P step inside an I-domain case?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- "Cannot be solved once, can be governed over time" is a standard Issue signal when paired with other signals such as unstable success criteria, feedback loops, relationship effects, and multiple reasonable goals.
- Use as a regression sample to prevent QPI from over-routing psychological-relational Issues to Problem.
  - The failure mode is outputting one-time fixes, three-step cures, or single intervention scripts.
- QPI does not design psychological intervention.
  - It may only decide whether enough context exists to split out a bounded local P subtask.
  - Minimum conditions: actor, object, local_goal, risk_boundary, feedback_signal, reversibility, and non_terminal framing.

## Case qpi-draft-005: External Help as Method Teaching vs Calibration Environment

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: supporting_external_authority_boundary_issue_case

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The subject questions whether external psychological support is useful or merely treats symptoms.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is evaluating the role of external intervention while preserving personal agency. The subject may distrust external authority, commercialized help, or over-generalized therapeutic scripts.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source distinguishes low-quality outside intervention from high-quality support that helps the subject build self-governance, feedback, boundary, and relational calibration capacities.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Either the subject must self-design the intervention model, or external help must solve it.
- Reality: A better frame distributes roles: the subject retains final agency, while external support can provide feedback, mirror, method, and safe relational correction.
- Gap summary: The question is not whether outside help solves the Issue, but what role it plays in the governance system.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source first considers the claim that external intervention may be limited, then refines it by separating poor intervention from support that enables self-governance.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

The frame shifts from binary Q/P to Issue. The relevant judgment depends on role boundaries, quality conditions, and how the intervention changes the subject's self-regulation system.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

This is primarily an Issue case about role boundaries, agency, trust, expertise, and external calibration. Method choice is secondary.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires role boundary management, risk control, authority calibration, and ongoing assessment of whether external help increases or weakens self-governance.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- single-cause_reduction
- over_pathologizing

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- recommended_next_step: Reframe from "external help works or does not work" to "what external role, under what boundaries, helps the subject build a stronger self-governance system."

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Is this an Issue sample because it is primarily about role/order calibration rather than method selection?
- Should QPI include "external authority boundary" as a governance-load signal?
- Should selector calibration treat "does therapy work" style inputs as low-confidence until context is known?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep this case; do not delete it as an intervention case.
  - The core is not whether psychological consultation works, but the role boundary of external help in a self-governance system.
- Add `external_authority_boundary` as a governance-load signal in prose.
  - This is not psychological advice.
  - It marks authority, dependency, calibration environment, and subject agency risks.
- Treat "does therapy work" style inputs as low-confidence until context is known.
  - They may be Q, P, or I depending on whether the user asks for evidence, logistics, or long-term self-governance.

## Case qpi-draft-006: Time Scale Changes the QPI Classification

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: selector_calibration_time_scale_scope_case

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The same relational phenomenon appears to have different QPI classifications depending on time scale and system boundary.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is a model builder or self-reflective owner evaluating how one phenomenon changes across moments, situations, and life-history scale.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source explicitly frames Q/P/I as dynamic viewpoints rather than static properties. A question about one moment may differ from a question about a concrete decision or a life-system pattern.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The phenomenon should have one stable classification.
- Reality: It may be Q at the concept level, P at the action-decision level, and I at the long-term life-pattern level.
- Gap summary: Classification depends on observer position, time scale, goal scale, and system boundary.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source proposes treating problem granularity as a modeling result rather than a fixed property of the issue.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

This is the core case: Q -> P -> I across time and scope. The dynamic shift is not a failure of classification; it is the phenomenon QPI must represent.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`inter_viewpoint_divergence`

The divergence comes from different time scales and responsibility scopes. It should not be collapsed into intra-frame mixed unless the same subject is operating at multiple scales simultaneously.

### 9. Governance Load

High when the subject must choose the right scale before acting. Mis-scaling can cause over-analysis, under-analysis, or wrong intervention choice.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- premature_classification
- malicious_inflation
- violent_reduction
- tool_solutionism

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: multi_perspective
- is_provisional: true
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: mixed
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Ask for the subject's active time scale and decision boundary before deciding whether to answer, solve, or govern.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should QPI output include a required `time_scale` or `classification_scope` field for this exact reason?
- Should "same phenomenon, different time scale" be treated as inter-viewpoint divergence or a separate dynamic-scope category?
- Should selector calibration include short inputs that are no-call or Q at one scale but QPI/Issue at another?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `time_scale` and `classification_scope`.
  - QPI is a slice-at-a-time front routing model, not a full dynamic simulation.
  - It must record the time slice and scope so that a local Q/P/I judgment is not mistaken for a global judgment.
- Treat "same phenomenon, different time scale" as `inter_viewpoint_divergence` for now.
  - Do not introduce a new dynamic-scope enum in this round.
- Add selector calibration for short inputs that are no-call or Q at one scale but QPI/Issue at another.

## Case qpi-draft-007: QPI Mismatch Table for Psychological-Relational Material

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: qpi_mismatch_diagnostics_regression_case

regression_candidate: high_priority

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The source identifies recurring mistakes where a psychological-relational Issue is treated as a label question, single-step solution, moral judgment, or over-expanded life theory.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is a QPI model builder or reviewer designing guardrails for future classification. The responsibility scope is product/model stability rather than direct advice.

### 3. Scenario Context

The context is QPI model hardening. Psychological-relational inputs often contain ambiguous language that can trigger over-simplification or over-complication.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: A table of Q/P/I categories can classify the input.
- Reality: The more important task is detecting frame mismatch before routing.
- Gap summary: QPI needs misframing diagnostics, not only final labels.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source lists mismatch patterns such as treating an Issue as a label lookup, treating an Issue as a one-step plan, or turning a simple concept question into a life problem.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

The frame shifts from model content to model validation. The case is about how QPI itself should resist failure modes.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

This is primarily a guardrail case for QPI itself, not a user-world case with multiple simultaneous scarcities.

### 9. Governance Load

High for the model library. The rule must prevent future selector and regression samples from rewarding shallow category assignment.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- tool_solutionism
- premature_classification
- single-cause_reduction
- over_pathologizing

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: false
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Add QPI mismatch diagnostics to case preprocessing so each draft records both candidate classification and likely wrong classifications.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should QPI case digest include an explicit `wrong_route_to_avoid` field?
- Should mismatch detection become part of QPI regression rather than selector calibration only?
- Which mismatch labels should be canonical in v0.3?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep this case as a QPI guardrail case.
- Add explicit `wrong_route_to_avoid` in case digest.
- Use mismatch detection in QPI regression, not selector calibration only.
- Canonical mismatch labels for this round:
  - `I_as_Q`
  - `I_as_P`
  - `P_as_I`
  - `over_pathologizing`
  - `moral_judgment_substitution`
  - `single_factor_totalization`

## Case qpi-draft-008: Isolation as Protective Boundary or Overgeneralized Defense

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

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\失望性情感隔离心理分析.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The subject asks whether emotional withdrawal is unhealthy avoidance or a valid boundary.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is a person evaluating their own relational strategy. The subject has final authority over boundaries, but may not have enough feedback to tell whether the strategy remains adaptive.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source frames isolation as potentially protective in high-risk relationships, but costly when generalized to safe or potentially supportive relationships.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The strategy should be judged as either good boundary or bad avoidance.
- Reality: The judgment depends on target, intensity, duration, benefit, cost, and current environment.
- Gap summary: A binary moral or clinical judgment misses the governance variables that determine whether isolation is still serving the subject.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source proposes evaluating object, strength, benefit, and cost rather than treating isolation as uniformly good or bad.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

The frame shifts from Q to I. It may start as "Is this normal?" but becomes an ongoing calibration problem across relationships and stages.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

The same subject may later extract bounded local P tasks, but the core classification is Issue: ongoing calibration of a protective strategy across target, intensity, duration, benefit, cost, environment, energy state, feedback, and reversibility.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The subject must repeatedly judge when withdrawal is protective, when it is overgeneralized, and when a new relational experiment is worth the risk.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- over_pathologizing
- single-cause_reduction
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: false
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- classification_note: issue_with_local_P_candidates
- recommended_next_step: Replace binary judgment with a governance review: target, intensity, duration, benefit, cost, generalization, current environment, energy state, feedback, and reversibility. First run value assessment to decide whether this case needs full Issue governance or only a bounded local Problem step.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this be classified as Issue rather than P/I mixed because the core task is ongoing calibration?
- What evidence would justify routing part of the case to Problem, such as a concrete boundary conversation?
- Should this case become a canonical example of "Issue does not require many people; one-person self-governance can still be Issue"?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Do not merge this case into qpi-draft-004.
  - qpi-draft-004 prevents psychological-relational Issue from being misrouted as one-time Problem.
  - qpi-draft-008 is the positive anchor for one-person self-governance as Issue.
- Classify as `issue`, not P/I mixed.
  - Local P tasks can exist only as bounded subtasks inside the Issue.
  - Use prose note `issue_with_local_P_candidates`.
- Problem routing requires value assessment plus a bounded action unit:
  - actor;
  - object;
  - local_goal;
  - risk_boundary;
  - time_window;
  - feedback_signal;
  - reversibility;
  - non_terminal framing.
- Make this a canonical example:
  - `Issue does not require multiple people; one-person self-governance can still be Issue.`
  - Issue depends on sustained governance load, not the presence of multiple human participants.
- Owner model notes:
  - A single self-governing subject can have 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, and Value Assessment Gate.
  - Do not add these as new QPI classification categories in this round.
