# QPI Case Drafts: Year-End Review Academic Affairs 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-academic-affairs.cases-GPT.md`

owner_review_note: Owner review completed for all eight draft cases. The owner confirmed current anonymization is sufficient. The group-level center is that academic affairs treats compliance indicators, teaching outcomes, staffing ratios, academic output, digital tools, and safety controls as reportable artifacts rather than operating realities, causing multiple local Problems to accumulate into a system-level Issue.

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, exact numbers, and sensitive operational details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive-anchor names 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 generic roles such as `decision_maker`, `execution_lead`, `technical_staff`, `frontline_staff`, and `affected_learners`. The organization is represented as `the organization`; the department is represented as `academic_affairs_function`. Sensitive details are generalized as `external compliance review`, `credential metric`, `staffing ratio`, `assessment material`, `academic integrity risk`, `teaching operation risk`, `quality assurance gap`, and `public safety compliance gap`.

## Case qpi-draft-001: Compliance Reporting Becomes Performative Evidence Construction

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization needs to prepare assessment materials for an external compliance review and wants the submission to present a strong, coherent story.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization under `decision_maker` pressure, with `academic_affairs_function` and `execution_lead` responsible for converting weak operational reality into acceptable review evidence. The subject is not a neutral writer asking how to improve a report; it is an accountable system tempted to use documentation as a substitute for actual capability.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a year-end review context where external compliance survival, assessment evidence, and digital tools are discussed together. The organization faces a high-stakes review and is considering tool-assisted reconstruction of materials.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Assessment materials should accurately reflect real teaching operations, quality assurance, and institutional capability.
- Reality: The proposed path risks starting from desired conclusions and then generating supporting materials backward.
- Gap summary: A compliance documentation task becomes a truthfulness and governance problem because evidence construction may replace evidence collection.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to use digital or AI tools to accelerate material preparation and make the review narrative more polished. The risky version of this path treats the tool as a way to reverse-engineer evidence after the desired rating is assumed.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It starts as a Problem about how to prepare materials efficiently. It shifts into an Issue because the method changes the organization's relationship to evidence, auditability, and institutional honesty.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

For the same organization in the same review scenario, there is both data scarcity and order scarcity. The organization lacks reliable evidence and is also tempted to change the rules of evidence by treating fabricated coherence as acceptable.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires managing audit authenticity, review exposure, data lineage, tool boundaries, and the difference between legitimate material organization and performative evidence construction.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- tool_solutionism
- 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
- recommended_next_step: Separate legitimate evidence organization from fabricated evidence construction, require a traceable evidence inventory before tool-assisted material drafting, and keep tool use inside evidence-boundary governance.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case emphasize `consensus_order` because it is about evidence legitimacy, or `data` because the triggering gap is missing reliable proof? [answered: keep `consensus_order`; missing reliable proof is the trigger]
- Should it become a selector calibration case for "AI or tool request that should not be treated as a simple execution task"? [answered: yes]
- Is the anonymization level sufficient, or should the external review context be generalized further? [answered: sufficient; no further generalization needed]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
  - `data_scarcity` remains high because reliable evidence is missing.
  - The core QPI issue is evidence legitimacy, audit authenticity, and tool boundary governance.
- Keep `classification: mixed` because the same case contains data scarcity and governance scarcity.
- Use as selector calibration and high-priority regression for AI/tool requests that must not be treated as simple execution.
- Owner-approved wording: "AI can organize evidence, but must not manufacture the evidentiary relationship."
- Current anonymization is sufficient.

## Case qpi-draft-002: Credential Metric Repair Creates Staffing Ratio Deadlock

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: credential_metric_staffing_ratio_deadlock_calibration_case

selector_calibration_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 credential or staffing ratio metric for external compliance.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization as framed by `decision_maker` and implemented through `academic_affairs_function`. `frontline_staff`, newly recruited staff, and existing staff become affected system parts rather than equal framers of the problem.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a teaching operation and staffing discussion. The organization has recruited or reclassified people to satisfy metric pressure, but the available course structure and role design cannot absorb them productively.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Recruiting or counting higher-credential staff should strengthen compliance and teaching capability.
- Reality: Credential-matched staff may have no suitable work, while existing staff may lose workload or security.
- Gap summary: A compliance metric repair creates resource idle time, role mismatch, and internal conflict.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent paths include adding credentialed people, reallocating workload from existing staff, and using organizational structure to make staffing numbers look compliant. These paths improve the table before they improve the operating system.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It begins as a Problem about how to meet a metric. It becomes an Issue because the chosen path creates sustained tradeoffs among compliance, cost, workload fairness, staff morale, and actual teaching value.

### 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 in the same scenario faces both path/resource scarcity and order scarcity. The organization can add people, but cannot translate them into useful teaching capacity without triggering conflict.

### 9. Governance Load

High. This requires ongoing management of staffing legitimacy, workload distribution, incentive backlash, budget pressure, compliance exposure, and role boundaries.

### 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
- recommended_next_step: Treat the staffing metric as a P/I mixed case triggered by external policy pressure, then test whether the organization is creating a staffing-ratio deadlock by prioritizing compliance value over real teaching-use value.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should the dominant scarcity be `path_resource` because the immediate blocker is role absorption, or `consensus_order` because the deeper risk is zero-sum governance? [answered: keep `consensus_order`; policy pressure is the trigger, path/resource absorption is direct blocker]
- Should this case be merged with other staffing-ratio cases, or kept separate as an academic-affairs-specific example? [answered: keep separate and link to related staffing-ratio cases]
- Does the phrase "credential metric" sufficiently anonymize the original compliance indicator? [answered: yes]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `classification: mixed` and `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
  - External policy adjustment is the trigger.
  - Direct blockage is path/resource: staff are counted but courses, roles, workload, and capability models cannot absorb them.
  - The deeper issue is governance/order: compliance value is substituted for real use value, producing staffing-ratio deadlock.
- Do not merge with other staffing cases.
  - Link it to related staffing-ratio cases, but keep it as an academic-affairs-specific resource-deadlock sample.
- Current anonymization is sufficient.

## Case qpi-draft-003: Academic Output Incentive Becomes Integrity Backlash

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: policy_memory_integrity_backlash_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 an academic output incentive policy produced weak or unreliable outputs and now needs correction.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization and `academic_affairs_function` dealing with the consequences of a prior incentive design. `frontline_staff` are both participants in the old incentive game and affected parties under the correction.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a review of teaching quality, promotion incentives, and academic output claims. The organization previously rewarded output quantity or formal compliance, then recognized that the reward system encouraged low-integrity behavior.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Output incentives should encourage real academic or teaching development.
- Reality: The incentive design encouraged performative output and may have normalized low-integrity shortcuts.
- Gap summary: A policy intended to strengthen capability created a trust and integrity liability.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The organization appears to have used quantifiable output incentives and then considered or initiated a reversal. The reversal may reduce future distortion, but it also risks backlash from people who already paid cost under the previous rule.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It starts as a Problem about correcting a bad incentive. It shifts into an Issue because the correction affects trust, fairness, past commitments, and organizational culture.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The case contains policy repair, incentive redesign, and trust repair within the same frame. The technical path is not enough because the previous policy has already reshaped behavior and expectations.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The organization must manage academic integrity, incentive transition, retroactive fairness, staff trust, and the long-term difference between real capability and formal output.

### 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
- recommended_next_step: Frame this as incentive integrity and trust repair, not policy cleanup. Separate future integrity rules from transitional handling of policy memory, trust debt, and people affected by prior incentives.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this be classified as `issue` rather than `mixed`, given that the path to correction exists but legitimacy remains contested? [answered: yes]
- Should the draft explicitly include "policy memory" as a proxy stakeholder? [answered: yes; policy memory means historical commitments, sunk costs, trust debt, and behavioral inertia left by prior policy]
- Is this case useful as a false-negative trap where a selector might under-call QPI because the surface request sounds like policy cleanup? [answered: yes]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Classify as `issue`, not ordinary `mixed`.
  - A correction path exists, but the core scarcity is not how to cancel a policy.
  - The old incentive created integrity risk, trust debt, historical commitments, and behavioral inertia.
- Add `policy_memory` as a proxy stakeholder.
  - It is not a person; it is the old policy's commitments, sunk cost, trust debt, and habits continuing to shape the system.
- Use as a false-negative trap: surface policy cleanup should still call QPI when the real issue is incentive integrity and trust repair.
- Recommended field: `classification_note: policy_repair_with_policy_memory_and_trust_debt`.

## Case qpi-draft-004: Strategic Alignment Is Replaced By Easier Program Packaging

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: short_term_packaging_vs_long_term_strategy_calibration_case

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is choosing which program, project, or specialization to prioritize for strategic development and external recognition.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization under `decision_maker` strategy pressure, with `academic_affairs_function` responsible for translating that strategy into program-level execution. The function also has its own local incentives to choose easier paths.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a strategic alignment discussion. The decision layer expects program choices to connect to a broader organizational industry or mission advantage, while the execution layer gravitates toward options that are easier to package, report, or complete.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Program selection should align with the organization's strategic advantage and long-term positioning.
- Reality: Execution may select a more convenient or fashionable option that improves short-term reportability while weakening strategic coherence.
- Gap summary: A strategic choice is reduced to a packaging convenience problem.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The attempted path is to choose a more workable or marketable label for application and reporting. This lowers immediate execution difficulty but may disconnect the project from the organization's real strategic base.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It begins as a Problem about selecting and executing a project path. It becomes an Issue because the selected path reveals conflict between strategic intent, departmental incentives, and evaluation convenience.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`inter_viewpoint_divergence`

From the execution function's viewpoint, this may look like a practical Problem: choose the feasible path. From the decision layer's viewpoint, it is an Issue about strategic discipline and local incentive drift.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires aligning strategy, incentives, execution capacity, external review criteria, and the threshold for rejecting convenient but strategically hollow options.

### 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
- recommended_next_step: Ask whose frame is active. Keep the role divergence visible, then test whether a resource-feasible compromise is being checked against long-term positioning or becoming short-term strategic myopia.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be labeled `inter_viewpoint_divergence` because the same choice differs by role, or `intra_frame_mixed` because one organization contains both frames? [answered: keep `inter_viewpoint_divergence` for QPI calibration strength]
- Should the owner-expected judgment emphasize "strategic evasion" or "resource-feasible compromise"? [answered: resource-feasible compromise can become strategic myopia if not tested against long-term positioning]
- Is this a good calibration case for distinguishing local feasibility from organizational strategy? [answered: calibrate short-term reportability/packaging versus long-term strategic planning, not generic local feasibility]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `inter_viewpoint_divergence`.
  - Decision layer sees strategic alignment.
  - Execution layer sees reportability and application feasibility.
  - Market-facing frame sees communication and enrollment value.
  - Long-term organization frame sees strategic myopia risk.
- Keep `classification: issue` and `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
- Owner-approved wording: "A resource-feasible compromise becomes strategic myopia if it is not tested against long-term positioning."
- Use as calibration for short-term reportability or packaging substituting for long-term strategic planning.

## Case qpi-draft-005: Resource Reuse Proposal Collides With Operational Reality

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: cross_boundary_resource_reuse_issue_case

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is how to reuse surplus teaching capacity across internal units to reduce cost and improve utilization.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject differs by viewpoint. `decision_maker` sees unused capacity and seeks cross-unit reuse. `execution_lead` and receiving units see timetable mismatch, capability mismatch, and operational disruption.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears after the organization has created surplus or underused staffing capacity. Cross-unit teaching reuse is proposed as a way to convert idle resources into value.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Surplus staff can be redeployed across units to solve underutilization.
- Reality: Role fit, schedule structure, learner profile, and unit boundary constraints may make the proposed reuse impractical or damaging.
- Gap summary: A cost-saving idea that looks simple from above becomes a cross-boundary operating problem below.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The attempted path is cross-unit reassignment or shared staffing. The resistance path is to reject the reassignment because the work is not equivalent across units and the schedules do not naturally align.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It starts as a Problem about resource allocation. It becomes an Issue because the reuse path triggers role boundary, unit autonomy, quality, and fairness disputes.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`inter_viewpoint_divergence`

From the decision layer, the case may look like a path/resource Problem. From the receiving or executing units, it becomes an Issue about role fit and imposed coordination burden.

### 9. Governance Load

High. Sustainable reuse requires role compatibility, scheduling authority, quality standards, workload agreements, and credible feedback from affected units.

### 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: Treat cross-boundary resource reuse as a role-boundary governance issue unless role fit, learner fit, schedule fit, quality standard, willingness, retraining cost, compensation, and pilot feedback are all evidenced.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should the classification be `mixed` or `issue`? [answered: issue; the decision-layer resource Problem is a violent reduction]
- Should this be paired with the staffing ratio deadlock case, or does it represent a distinct resource reuse pattern? [answered: pair but do not merge; this is cross-boundary resource reuse failure]
- What minimum evidence would make redeployment a legitimate Problem rather than an Issue? [answered: role_fit, learner_fit, schedule_fit, quality_standard, willingness, retraining_cost, compensation, and pilot_feedback]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Classify as `issue`, not ordinary `mixed`.
  - From the decision layer it looks like a resource reuse Problem.
  - That is the violent reduction: different teaching objects, capability models, time structures, and quality responsibilities are compressed into "available capacity can be reused."
- Pair with qpi-draft-002, but do not merge.
  - qpi-draft-002 is staffing-ratio deadlock.
  - qpi-draft-005 is cross-boundary resource reuse failure.
- Redeployment can become a legitimate Problem only when evidence exists for role fit, learner fit, schedule fit, quality standard, willingness, retraining cost, compensation, and pilot feedback.
- Owner note: university teachers may be considered for low-risk interest classes, but direct core-course redeployment is not valid without retraining and compensation.

## Case qpi-draft-006: Student Outcome Decline Is Reframed As Input Quality Excuse

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: outcome_decline_quality_assurance_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 student outcome indicators and learner complaints have worsened, creating pressure on the academic affairs system.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is `academic_affairs_function` under accountability pressure. `affected_learners` appear as downstream recipients of quality gaps, while `decision_maker` evaluates whether the function still has operational credibility.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a review of student progression, academic quality, complaints, and teaching operation. The function appears to explain poor outcomes partly through input conditions and learner quality.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The academic affairs system should improve learning outcomes, identify quality problems, and manage learner complaints before they become systemic distrust.
- Reality: Outcome decline is explained through external or upstream factors, while internal management levers remain under-specified.
- Gap summary: A quality assurance failure is at risk of being reframed as an unavoidable input problem.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is explanatory defense: cite difficult input conditions, highlight isolated achievements, or use micro-successes to offset macro outcome decline. This may protect the function rhetorically but does not repair the quality system.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q/P -> I. It begins with Questions about what the data really shows and Problems about process repair. It becomes an Issue when responsibility attribution, trust, and accountability are contested.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

For the same accountability frame, the case contains uncertain causal data, missing improvement path, and order scarcity around responsibility attribution.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The organization must manage outcome evidence, learner voice, quality assurance, accountability boundaries, and whether local bright spots can legitimately offset systemic decline.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- single-cause_reduction
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Separate input-condition analysis from management-lever audit, then require a quality assurance map linking complaints, outcomes, process controls, owner accountability, and the limits of isolated achievements.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be classified as `mixed` because data, path, and responsibility are all contested? [answered: yes, with `consensus_order` as dominant scarcity]
- Should isolated achievements be treated as evidence of latent capability or as masking signals? [answered: prioritize as masking signal; they may indicate local capability but cannot offset systemic decline]
- What owner-approved wording should be used to avoid over-claiming causal responsibility? [answered: input conditions may affect outcomes but cannot replace audit of management levers]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `classification: mixed` and `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
  - Data, path, and responsibility are all contested.
  - The leading issue is whether learning quality is institutionally supported or whether academic affairs is treated as cost, revenue, or reporting function.
- Treat isolated achievements primarily as masking signals.
  - They may indicate local capability, but they cannot offset systemic outcome decline.
- Owner-approved wording:
  - "Input conditions may affect outcomes, but cannot replace audit of management levers."
  - "Learner quality can explain part of the difficulty, but it cannot automatically exempt quality-assurance responsibility."
  - "Isolated achievements can be local capability signals, but cannot offset systemic decline."
  - "Current evidence indicates a quality assurance gap, but is insufficient to assign all causal responsibility to one function."
- Recommended field: `classification_note: outcome_decline_with_contested_input_conditions_and_quality_assurance_gap`.

## Case qpi-draft-007: Digital Platform And Local AI Choice Becomes Governance Boundary Problem

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: digital_governance_boundary_calibration_case

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is choosing a digital collaboration platform or AI deployment mode for the organization.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is split between `decision_maker`, who prioritizes control and data safety, and `technical_staff`, who worries about iteration speed, obsolescence, and practical maintenance. `academic_affairs_function` appears as one affected business function.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a discussion of digital transformation, platform standardization, and AI deployment. Multiple tools or deployment modes are considered without a stable decision basis.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The organization should choose a digital base that supports coordination, security, and long-term use.
- Reality: Platform choice is debated through partial priorities, with no shared weighting of data security, iteration speed, integration, maintainability, and user adoption.
- Gap summary: A tool selection question hides an unresolved governance boundary.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent paths include comparing platforms, testing tools, and choosing between local control and cloud-based iteration. These paths remain unstable because the evaluation criteria are not settled.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q/P -> I. It may begin as a Question about which tool is better or a Problem about how to deploy. It becomes an Issue because the real conflict is between governance priorities.

### 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 same platform decision can be framed as a technical Problem by implementers, a risk-control Issue by decision makers, and a user-adoption Problem by operating functions.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The organization must maintain platform standards, data boundaries, lifecycle decisions, adoption incentives, and responsibility for future migration or failure.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- tool_solutionism
- malicious_inflation
- 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: Define digital governance criteria, authority, data boundaries, lifecycle responsibility, user adoption standards, and migration responsibility before comparing platform or AI deployment options.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case remain in QPI calibration, or does it overlap too much with generic technology strategy examples? [answered: keep in QPI calibration; tool choice is masking digital governance]
- Should the dominant scarcity be `consensus_order` because criteria are contested, or `path_resource` because implementation cost is material? [answered: `consensus_order`]
- Is the local-vs-cloud distinction too specific and should it be further generalized? [answered: no; keep it, but emphasize governance criteria rather than which option is better]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep in QPI calibration.
  - This is not a generic technology preference case.
  - Tool selection is masking missing management standards, data boundaries, lifecycle responsibility, adoption incentives, and digital governance level.
- Keep `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
  - Path/resource cost exists, but the missing object is shared governance criteria and authority.
- Local versus cloud detail can remain.
- Owner-approved wording: "Define digital governance criteria before platform selection."

## Case qpi-draft-008: Public Safety Compliance Gap Reveals Bottom-Line Control Failure

status: owner_reviewed


owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: bottom_line_control_failure_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 a large activity or event was not managed through proper safety and compliance procedures.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization and `academic_affairs_function` as part of the operating system responsible for basic procedural control. `affected_learners`, frontline organizers, and external regulators are proxy stakeholders.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears inside a broader teaching and compliance review. It is not only an event-management problem; it is evidence that basic operating controls may be weak during high-pressure or high-volume situations.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Activities involving large groups should have clear approval, reporting, safety planning, and accountability.
- Reality: The event proceeded without adequate procedural control and created external enforcement or safety exposure.
- Gap summary: A single event failure points to a deeper bottom-line control gap.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source suggests reactive handling after the event rather than a reliable preventive process. The organization may treat it as an isolated incident, but the governance signal is broader.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It starts as a Problem about missing event process. It becomes an Issue because it reveals control culture, risk ownership, and whether compliance procedures are treated as optional.

### 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 operational frame contains a missing process path and a governance failure. A checklist may fix the local process, but not the underlying tolerance for unmanaged risk.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires defining approval authority, event risk classification, accountability, external reporting boundaries, learner safety, and hard stop rules.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- single-cause_reduction
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Treat the event as a bottom-line control signal and a local P/system I mixed case. Build hard-gate approval, reporting, risk ownership, participant safety controls, and stop rules before allowing similar activities.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be classified as `mixed` or direct `issue`? [answered: mixed, with `consensus_order` dominant]
- Should it be included in QPI calibration even though it is less cognitively subtle and more operationally concrete? [answered: yes; concrete operational accidents can reveal bottom-line control failure]
- What level of detail should remain after anonymization so the safety risk is still meaningful? [answered: keep large activity, missing approval/reporting, external enforcement risk, participant safety risk, and bottom-line control failure]

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- This case refers to a large activity / event that lacked proper reporting, approval, and safety compliance controls.
- Keep `classification: mixed` and `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
  - Local layer is P: missing approval, reporting, risk checklist, accountable owner, and hard stop rule.
  - System layer is I: whether public safety, learner rights, and external compliance are treated as hard boundaries.
- Include in QPI calibration and high-priority regression.
  - Its value is testing whether QPI can identify a concrete operating accident as a bottom-line control failure rather than only a missing checklist.
- Current anonymization is sufficient; preserve only large activity, missing approval/reporting, external enforcement risk, participant safety risk, and bottom-line control failure.
