# QPI Case Promotion Summary And Review Guide

## 1. Promotion Scope

This round promotes 62 owner-reviewed QPI draft cases into reusable review assets:

| Source group | Digest count | Calibration count | Regression count |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| `disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md` | 8 | 8 | carried from prior work |
| `flow-redesign.cases.md` | 6 | 6 | carried from prior work |
| `year-end-review-development-office.cases.md` | 8 | 8 | 3 |
| `year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md` | 8 | 8 | 4 |
| `year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md` | 8 | 8 | 4 |
| `year-end-review-engineering-center.cases.md` | 8 | 8 | 4 |
| `year-end-review-international-college.cases.md` | 8 | 9 | 4 |
| `year-end-review-research-office.cases.md` | 8 | 8 | 4 |

International-college has 9 calibration inputs because it includes one paired no-call trap for simple logistics.

## 2. Key Modeling Decisions To Review

### Development Office

- Hard resource gaps must not be disguised as document polishing or compliance packaging.
- Credential continuity, incentive backlash, untrusted source data, and cross-unit resource conflicts were promoted into QPI assets.
- 3 high-priority regression cases were added.

### Academic Affairs

- Cases focus on evidence legitimacy, staffing deadlocks, policy memory, quality assurance gaps, digital governance, and bottom-line control.
- `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order` is intentionally common because the owner review emphasized governance and legitimacy over local execution.
- 4 high-priority regression cases were added.

### Employment Entrepreneurship

- This group tests employment outcomes as organizational survival proof.
- Key patterns include reverse accountability, credential compliance exposure, reported-metric legitimacy, overpromising, metric credibility, and transactional education.
- 4 high-priority regression cases were added.

### Engineering Center

- This group tests target authenticity, equipment-led solutionism, shortcut debt, credential integrity, production without market closure, decision-rights fatigue, inherited asset liability, and personnel transition governance.
- Case 005 was changed away from `question` framing because production without market closure is a business-purpose mismatch for the organizational subject.
- 4 high-priority regression cases were added.

### International College

- Case 001 was promoted from `mixed` to `issue` because compliance boundary dominates retention tactics.
- Case 002 keeps `dominant_scarcity: path_resource` but remains `mixed` because cross-unit conflict and capacity governance are visible.
- Case 004 is the clearest `inter_viewpoint_divergence` sample with `classification_by_viewpoint`.
- Case 006 was promoted from `problem` to `issue` because high-ticket education pricing deadlock is a trust-system failure.
- APTC appears only as an owner-provided context note, not as a new model.
- 4 high-priority regression cases were added.

### Research Office

- Case 001 is the umbrella case: research identity simulation.
- Case 002 was changed from `inter_viewpoint_divergence` to `intra_frame_mixed`.
- Case 003 is retained as a subcase/evidence case under 001.
- Case 006 is classified as `problem` with governance risk, per owner review.
- Case 008 is kept independent as `punishment_state_vs_integrity_state`.
- 4 high-priority regression cases were added.

## 3. Regression Selection Principle

Not all owner-reviewed cases enter regression. Regression was reserved for cases that are:

- reusable false-positive / false-negative traps;
- boundary cases where QPI is likely to misclassify Q/P/I/mixed;
- high-value misuse cases involving violent reduction, malicious inflation, tool solutionism, or untrusted data;
- selector-critical cases that protect QPI-before-IA and no-call behavior.

Other cases remain in digest and calibration.

## 4. Current Review Question

The main question is not whether these cases solve the organizational problems. QPI is not a solution model.

The review question is:

```text
Do these owner-reviewed cases now give QPI enough auditable, evidence-linked, misuse-resistant routing examples for draft-callable selector calibration and regression hardening?
```
