# QPI Case Drafts: Year-End Review Employment Function

status: owner_reviewed

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, places, titles, exact numbers, and sensitive operational 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.

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-employment-entrepreneurship.cases-GPT.md`

owner_review_note: Owner/GPT review approved all eight cases for digest promotion. No additional anonymization required. Core pattern: employment outcomes as organizational survival proof can shift the employment function from service support into authority redesign; data credibility, delivery capacity, teaching legitimacy, and education value definition must be governed together.

anonymization_note: People are represented as roles such as `decision_maker`, `execution_lead`, `employment_function`, `teaching_function`, `finance_function`, and `frontline_staff`. The organization is represented as `the organization`. Sensitive details are generalized as `outcome metric pressure`, `student pipeline`, `employer coordination risk`, `credential metric workaround`, `internal accounting mismatch`, `reverse accountability power`, and `compliance exposure`.

## Case qpi-draft-001: Outcome Metric Pressure Becomes Reverse Accountability Power

status: owner_reviewed

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that student outcome metrics are under strategic pressure, so the organization wants the `employment_function` to force the `teaching_function` to align programs, courses, and student management with employability results.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization as framed by `decision_maker`. The `employment_function` is being promoted from a service role into a control role. The `teaching_function` and `frontline_staff` become affected parties whose professional authority may be overridden by outcome pressure.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in an organizational year-end review under survival-level market pressure. The organization treats employment outcomes as proof that the education product is still viable. The `employment_function` is given stronger leverage over student pipeline design and internal accountability.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Giving the `employment_function` stronger authority will force teaching, student management, and employer coordination to converge around real outcomes.
- Reality: A service function gaining veto-like power over teaching may trigger organizational rejection, metric gaming, and professional resistance.
- Gap summary: A coordination problem is escalated into a governance redesign without a stable accountability protocol.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to let outcome pressure override existing departmental boundaries. Instead of negotiating a shared teaching-employment mechanism, the organization tries to install `reverse accountability power` from the employment side toward the teaching side.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It begins as a Problem about improving student outcomes and employer alignment. It becomes an Issue because the proposed path changes authority boundaries, professional legitimacy, incentive structures, and the meaning of educational quality.

### 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 organization in the same year-end review, there is both a path problem and an order problem. The organization lacks a reliable implementation path, and the proposed authority inversion changes the internal order.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires ongoing tradeoff among student outcomes, teaching authority, employer promises, accountability design, professional boundaries, and resistance management.

### 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: Separate outcome-improvement design from authority redesign. Define who may evaluate teaching, what evidence counts, and what checks limit reverse accountability power.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be treated primarily as `issue`, or as `mixed` because there remains a concrete process design problem?
- Does `reverse accountability power` capture the source pathology without exposing sensitive organizational details?
- Should this become a selector calibration trap for cases where a hard metric hides authority redesign?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: hard_outcome_metric_authority_redesign_calibration_case
- selector_calibration_candidate: high_priority
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_note: outcome_improvement_problem_with_authority_redesign
- owner_decision: 保留 mixed。既有教学内容、教师状态、课程与就业断裂等 Problem，也有就业办获得反向考核权后的组织权威重构。
- owner_approved_terms:
  - reverse accountability power
  - hard outcome metric hiding authority redesign
- processing_note: 进入 digest 和 selector calibration；用于测试硬就业指标是否掩盖 authority redesign。

## Case qpi-draft-002: Credential Metric Repair Becomes Compliance Exposure

status: owner_reviewed

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-related metric for external evaluation or institutional positioning.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization under `decision_maker` pressure. The `employment_function` and adjacent functions are treated as tools for closing a metric gap rather than as owners of educational substance.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a review where staffing credentials, external labels, and compliance indicators are discussed as survival assets. The organization considers shortcuts that may satisfy a formal count while bypassing the substantive purpose behind the metric.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Acquiring or associating with credentialed personnel can quickly repair a visible compliance gap.
- Reality: If credentialed personnel are not substantively integrated into teaching, research, or student development, the metric becomes a fragile shell and may produce serious audit risk.
- Gap summary: A hard compliance metric is being solved through an externalized workaround rather than real capability building.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to source credentialed people or labels cheaply and quickly, treating them as indicator products. This may improve a table in the short term but does not create real capacity.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q/P -> I. It can begin as a Question about what the credential requirement is, then a Problem about how to close the gap. It becomes an Issue when the chosen path normalizes `credential metric workaround` and creates institutional legitimacy 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 faces a real resource/path scarcity and a governance scarcity. The metric gap is concrete, but the shortcut path changes the organization's compliance posture.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires managing external audit exposure, internal incentive distortion, authentic capability building, and the boundary between legitimate remediation and indicator fabrication.

### 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: Treat credential repair as a compliance-legitimacy risk unless substantive integration into teaching, research, or student development is evidenced.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be marked as a high-risk `issue` rather than `mixed`?
- Are the generalized terms `credential metric workaround` and `compliance exposure` sufficiently anonymized?
- Should future calibration require QPI to ask for evidence of substantive integration before accepting metric repair as a valid path?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: credential_metric_compliance_exposure_regression_case
- regression_candidate: high_priority
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_note: credential_gap_with_compliance_exposure
- owner_decision: 保留 mixed。credential gap 是真实 path/resource gap，但通过挂靠、贸易化、外部标签化修补指标会制造 compliance exposure。
- cross_link: academic_affairs_qpi_draft_002_staffing_ratio_deadlock
- evidence_gap:
  - substantive_integration_not_proven
  - credential_holder_role_in_teaching_or_research_unknown
  - compliance_review_boundary_unclear
- processing_note: 与教务组师资比例僵局 cross-link，不合并；进入 digest、calibration 和 regression。

## Case qpi-draft-003: Internal Accounting Mismatch Inflates Functional Performance

status: owner_reviewed

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the `employment_function` reports strong non-core revenue or contribution results, but the underlying calculation standard may not match the organization's financial recognition standard.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization and its `finance_function`, with the `employment_function` trying to demonstrate value under survival pressure. The reviewer must distinguish reported functional achievement from actual cash or recognized organizational value.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a year-end performance narrative where functional units are encouraged to prove they are not only cost centers. Reported contribution is used to justify strategic importance and expanded authority.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The reported revenue-like figure proves the function has independent value and can become a strategic growth node.
- Reality: The reported number may be based on internal conversion logic, incomplete collection, or non-standard recognition, so it may overstate the actual financial contribution.
- Gap summary: Functional performance is inflated by an `internal accounting mismatch`.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to use a department-level calculation standard to claim organizational contribution. This can make the function look more productive while leaving `finance_function` recognition unresolved.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q -> P/I. It may start as a Question about which number is correct. It becomes a Problem if the organization needs a unified accounting standard. It becomes an Issue when inflated performance numbers are used to justify power expansion or strategic decisions.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The same subject lacks reliable recognized data and also lacks a shared order for what counts as contribution. The data gap and governance gap reinforce each other.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires financial standard alignment, credibility management, performance evaluation fairness, and prevention of strategic decisions based on inflated internal claims.

### 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: Reconcile financial recognition standards and reported metric lineage before using the figure as evidence of strategic value or authority expansion.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should `dominant_scarcity` be `data` because the accounting basis is unclear, or `consensus_order` because the deeper risk is performance legitimacy?
- Should this case be used to test QPI's ability to avoid accepting reported metrics at face value?
- Does the anonymized phrasing remove enough source specificity?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: reported_metric_legitimacy_regression_case
- regression_candidate: high_priority
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_note: reported_metric_lineage_problem_as_performance_legitimacy_issue
- owner_decision: 现场实质是为了述职会构造更好看的绩效数据；数据口径问题只是入口，核心是 performance legitimacy。
- evidence_gap:
  - recognized_financial_standard_unknown
  - reported_metric_lineage_unverified
  - department_accounting_basis_conflicts_with_group_standard
- processing_note: 进入 digest、calibration 和 regression；测试 QPI 是否照单全收 reported metrics。

## Case qpi-draft-004: Outcome Promise Creates Student Pipeline Distortion

status: owner_reviewed

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization wants stronger student recruitment and retention by promising clearer employment outcomes.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization under market pressure. `decision_maker` frames student outcomes as a survival proof, while `employment_function`, `student_pipeline`, and `teaching_function` become instruments for making the promise credible.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears where education value, employment outcomes, pricing pressure, and recruitment narrative are tightly coupled. The organization may use outcome promises to compensate for weak perceived educational value.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: A stronger employment promise will make the education product easier to sell and will force internal functions to become more market-oriented.
- Reality: If the organization lacks real capability to deliver the promise, the student pipeline may become distorted by overpromising, data pressure, and downstream trust loss.
- Gap summary: A market-facing promise is used before the delivery system is stable.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to put employment outcomes into the center of recruitment and program design. This can be valid if backed by real capability, but dangerous if used as a substitute for capability.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It starts as a Problem about how to improve recruitment value and student outcomes. It becomes an Issue when the promise affects institutional identity, teaching incentives, student trust, and long-term brand legitimacy.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

Within the same organizational frame, there is a delivery path scarcity and a governance scarcity. The promise cannot be evaluated only as a marketing tactic.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires balancing recruitment pressure, student expectations, employer coordination risk, teaching capability, outcome proof, and long-term trust.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- tool_solutionism
- 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: Require delivery capacity, promise boundaries, outcome verification, and student-rights handling before treating outcome promises as legitimate recruitment strategy.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this be a separate case, or merged with the reverse accountability case?
- Does the source imply a stronger `issue` judgment because the student promise changes institutional identity?
- What context would be needed to distinguish legitimate outcome orientation from overpromising?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: overpromising_student_pipeline_regression_case
- regression_candidate: high_priority
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_note: external_promise_and_student_pipeline_distortion
- owner_decision: 独立成案，不并入 Case 001。001 是内部权力倒置，004 是外部学生承诺和招生 pipeline 扭曲。
- boundary_tests:
  - delivery_capacity
  - historical_outcome
  - employer_commitment
  - student_fit
  - risk_disclosure
  - verification
  - complaint_or_refund_boundary
- owner_approved_sentence: 结果导向只有在交付能力真实、承诺边界清楚时才是正当的。
- processing_note: 进入 digest、calibration 和 regression；测试 outcome promise 与 overpromising 的边界。

## Case qpi-draft-005: High Outcome Data Masks Data Quality Risk

status: owner_reviewed

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization has strong student outcome data and wants to use it as proof of institutional health.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization as evaluated by `decision_maker` and external stakeholders. `employment_function` is the data-producing function, while students, employers, and teaching units become the systems from which the data is extracted.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a review where outcome metrics are used as regulatory, recruitment, and internal performance evidence. The same metric may carry multiple political meanings.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Strong outcome data demonstrates real education-market fit and functional performance.
- Reality: If the data is produced under administrative pressure, it may contain hidden coercion, weak verification, or short-term compliance behavior.
- Gap summary: A green dashboard may hide `data quality risk` and behavioral distortion.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to celebrate the outcome metric and expand the mechanisms that produced it. The source warns that high-pressure mechanisms can make the data less trustworthy over time.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q/P -> I. It begins as a Question about whether the data is accurate and a Problem about how to maintain outcomes. It becomes an Issue when incentives push actors toward data production rather than substantive student value.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The same organization has both a data verification problem and an incentive-order problem. The metric cannot be trusted without understanding how it is produced.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires audit design, anti-gaming controls, student trust protection, employer verification, and separation of real outcomes from administrative compliance.

### 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: Audit the production mechanism behind outcome data before using high metric values as evidence of institutional health.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case require QPI to output an explicit `evidence_gap` around data production?
- Is this primarily a data scarcity case or an incentive governance case?
- Should future calibration distinguish high metric value from high metric credibility?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: high_metric_value_low_credibility_regression_case
- regression_candidate: high_priority
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_note: outcome_metric_production_governance_problem
- owner_decision: 主导稀缺不是普通 data scarcity，而是数据生产、加工、解释和使用机制的治理问题。
- evidence_gap:
  - outcome_data_production_mechanism
  - student_level_verification
  - employer_verification
  - coercion_or_compliance_behavior_risk
  - metric_use_in_authority_expansion
- calibration_distinction:
  - high_metric_value
  - high_metric_credibility
- owner_note: 在 I 域，高压 KPI 往往会制造其想要看到的数据；数据越被用于问责、招生、合规和权力扩张，越需要审计其生产机制。
- processing_note: 进入 digest、calibration 和 regression。

## Case qpi-draft-006: Employer Coordination Asset Remains Isolated From Teaching

status: owner_reviewed

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization has an employer-linked asset or project, but it is not clearly integrated into the student learning and program design pipeline.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization trying to convert external cooperation into educational capability. The `employment_function` owns or coordinates the external relation, while the `teaching_function` must make it meaningful for students.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a year-end review where external partnership, project funding, and practical training are presented as achievements. The concern is whether these assets are isolated showcases or connected to the core learning system.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Employer coordination will become a real capability asset and improve student outcomes.
- Reality: Without integration into curriculum, teaching plans, student projects, and assessment, the asset remains a detached showcase.
- Gap summary: A real external asset exists, but the integration path is incomplete.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to list the external asset as proof of employment-oriented education. The missing path is the operational bridge from asset to student capability development.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> mixed. It begins as a Problem because the asset appears real and the key gap is an integration path. It may become an Issue if authority conflict between functions blocks integration.

### 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 primary scarcity remains path/resource scarcity: how to connect employer assets to teaching and student capability. It becomes mixed when the asset is used as proof material, internship credential, or authority asset rather than learning capability.

### 9. Governance Load

Medium-high. The case requires coordination between functions and value-order judgment about whether the asset is used for capability building or merely for proof, display, and authority.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- tool_solutionism
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: path_resource
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Ask for the operational bridge from employer asset to curriculum, projects, assessment, portfolio evidence, and verified learning outcomes.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case remain `problem`, or should it become `mixed` because cross-function integration may trigger authority conflict?
- Is it useful as a positive contrast case where QPI should not over-escalate to Issue?
- What minimum evidence would prove that the employer asset is truly integrated?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: real_external_asset_integration_boundary_case
- selector_calibration_candidate: boundary_case
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: path_resource
- classification_note: real_external_asset_with_unproven_learning_integration_and_governance_risk
- owner_decision: 从 problem 改为边界型 mixed。若资源真实且只缺课程桥接是 Problem；但本来源中资源可能被用作展示资产、实习证明或述职材料，而非学生能力建设系统。
- minimum_integration_evidence:
  - curriculum_mapping
  - student_project
  - assessment_rubric
  - mentor_input
  - teacher_integration
  - portfolio_evidence
  - employer_feedback
  - outcome_verification
  - incentive_alignment
- processing_note: 进入 digest 和 calibration；不作为纯正面对照，不进入首轮 regression。

## Case qpi-draft-007: Functional Performance Gains Justify Power Expansion Too Quickly

status: owner_reviewed

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that a function shows strong visible performance and is therefore granted a larger strategic role.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization under `decision_maker` authority. The `employment_function` becomes the favored vehicle for survival reform, while adjacent functions may lose authority without a full institutional design.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a crisis-driven review. Because the organization distrusts slower legacy systems, a function that appears closer to market outcomes is elevated rapidly.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Elevating a high-performing function will break through inertia and force the system to become outcome-oriented.
- Reality: Fast power expansion can exceed the function's professional mandate, create backlash, and turn functional achievement into organizational overreach.
- Gap summary: Performance evidence is used to justify authority expansion before governance boundaries are settled.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is crisis-driven centralization around the function that seems closest to survival metrics. This may solve inertia but can create a new internal imbalance.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. It starts as a Problem about overcoming departmental walls and implementation paralysis. It becomes an Issue when the solution redistributes authority, changes evaluation rights, and creates legitimacy conflict.

### 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 organization lacks an implementation path and a legitimate authority design. The visible performance gain does not resolve governance scarcity.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires designing authority scope, checks and balances, conflict resolution, data credibility, and whether the favored function can bear the role assigned to it.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- malicious_inflation
- violent_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: Do not infer authority transfer from asset recognition. Define scope, checks, and evidence standards before expanding control.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be merged with Case 001, or kept separate as a general power-expansion pattern?
- Does `malicious_inflation` apply, or is this better described as crisis-driven overextension?
- Should QPI distinguish "asset recognition" from "authority transfer" as a recurring pattern?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: asset_recognition_to_authority_transfer_calibration_case
- selector_calibration_candidate: high_priority
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- risk_tag: asset_recognition_to_authority_transfer
- owner_decision: 独立保留，不与 Case 001 合并。malicious_inflation 适用：局部职能绩效被膨胀成系统级权威。
- qpi_distinction:
  - asset_recognition
  - authority_transfer
- processing_note: 进入 digest 和 selector calibration；用于区分承认资源成果与转移教学评价权/组织控制权。

## Case qpi-draft-008: Survival Strategy Reframes Education As Transactional Output

status: owner_reviewed

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

### 1. Surface Problem

The surface problem is that the organization needs a survival strategy in a hostile market and therefore shifts education toward employment, pricing, and measurable output.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the organization at the strategic level. `decision_maker` frames survival as the primary objective, while students, teaching units, employers, and compliance systems become parts of a transactional survival machine.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in a diagnostic slice where student outcome pressure, pricing pressure, compliance indicators, and internal authority redesign converge. The organization may be moving from an education identity toward a transactional output identity.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: A more transactional, outcome-centered model will help the organization survive market pressure.
- Reality: If the model hollows out teaching substance and relies on metrics, shortcuts, and pressure transfer, it may destroy the very legitimacy needed for long-term survival.
- Gap summary: A survival adaptation risks becoming a self-defeating identity shift.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The apparent path is to align the organization around measurable survival outputs: student outcomes, employer linkage, lower-cost delivery, compliance metrics, and function-led accountability. The path may solve short-term pressure while worsening long-term capability.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

I. This is not a simple Question or Problem. It concerns strategic identity, institutional legitimacy, value definition, incentive design, and long-term governance.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

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

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

There are concrete path/resource scarcities, but the dominant problem is order scarcity: what kind of organization it is becoming, what success means, and which tradeoffs are acceptable.

### 9. Governance Load

Very high. The case requires continuous governance of identity, incentives, compliance boundaries, stakeholder trust, student value, and whether short-term survival tactics poison long-term viability.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- premature_classification
- single-cause_reduction

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Treat this as an Issue-level strategic governance case. Identify which survival tactics preserve education capability and which replace education value with transactional output metrics.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Is this case too broad for calibration, or useful as an Issue anchor?
- Should it be decomposed into several narrower P/I mixed cases?
- What owner-approved wording should be used for the anonymized identity-shift risk?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- owner_review_status: owner_reviewed
- owner_approved_for_digest: true
- digest_role: transactional_education_issue_anchor
- selector_calibration_candidate: issue_anchor
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- case_level: umbrella_issue
- owner_decision: 保留为 Issue anchor，不拆。组织价值观在市场/营销第一与质量/产品服务第一之间的界定，本身是治理和协调过程。
- owner_approved_wording:
  - 组织在生存压力下，正在从教育能力建设滑向交易化输出逻辑。
  - 就业、创收和合规指标可以是生存信号，但不能替代教育产品的真实质量。
  - 风险不是重视就业本身，而是用就业/创收/合规指标接管教育价值定义。
- processing_note: 进入 digest 和 calibration，作为本组 Issue anchor；不拆分为更窄 case。
