2296 lines
102 KiB
JSON
2296 lines
102 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"digest_version": "0.1-draft",
|
|
"status": "owner_reviewed_incremental",
|
|
"created_from": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/multiple_owner_reviewed_sources",
|
|
"owner_review_source": "knowledge-vault/work/internal/强哥的思想宇宙/QPI案例审阅/QPI提炼审核/multiple_owner_reviewed_case_files",
|
|
"notes": "Owner-reviewed QPI case digests from incremental case review. These digests are calibration inputs, not CCRA-approved model evidence and not a model status upgrade.",
|
|
"cases": [
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"title": "Outline Review Was Not The Real Entry Point",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "supporting_evidence_for_context_engineering_entry_point_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The surface task was automating outline review, but owner review confirmed that the real issue was earlier context engineering and entry-point governance.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"wrong automation entry point exposes context engineering failure",
|
|
"stage authority and owner confirmation gate precede outline review",
|
|
"use as supporting evidence rather than strongest independent case"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"violent_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as supporting evidence for a context-engineering / entry-point governance calibration case."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"title": "Dispatch Pack Was Mistaken For Real Invocation",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "no_simulation_calibration_candidate",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A complete-looking dispatch pack and role reports did not constitute real independent agent invocation. The central issue is formal-output legitimacy, execution authenticity, invocation traceability, and the rule that the orchestrator must stop rather than simulate.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"simulation_only: true",
|
|
"formal_output: false",
|
|
"excluded_from_synthesis: true",
|
|
"blocked_until_real_invocation: true",
|
|
"cross-model no-simulation calibration example"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"violent_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as a QPI issue regression and cross-model no-simulation calibration case."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"title": "Chunk-First Distillation Produced Local Truth But Global Misread",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "local_truth_global_structure_misframing_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Chunk-first extraction produced locally true outputs but misread the whole-source structure. Owner review confirmed that the core scarcity is structural interpretation authority, not merely a missing processing path.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"do not split failure and remedy into separate cases",
|
|
"whole-source gestalt has authority before chunk extraction",
|
|
"named misframing risk: 局部真实冒充全局结构"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"local_truth_impersonating_global_structure"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as a digest and selector calibration case for local truth misused as global structure."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
|
|
"title": "Material Distillation Needed Stop Gates, Not More Automation",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "stop_gate_and_downstream_boundary_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The surface question was how far to automate after material distillation, but owner review confirmed that the central QPI issue is stop-gate placement, downstream boundary control, and owner authorization.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"do_not_auto_create_writing_project: true",
|
|
"do_not_auto_start_model_mining: true",
|
|
"requires_owner_authorization_for_downstream_transition: true",
|
|
"issue_with_downstream_P_tasks"
|
|
],
|
|
"owner_confirmation_gates": [
|
|
"whole-source gestalt confirmation",
|
|
"topic map canonicalization",
|
|
"material routing confirmation",
|
|
"topic docs generation boundary",
|
|
"writing-workbench transition gate",
|
|
"model-mining authorization gate",
|
|
"source-of-truth promotion gate"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as a digest and selector calibration case for stop-gate routing."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
|
|
"title": "Personal Workflow Redesign Looked Like P But Became P/I",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "intra_frame_mixed_anchor_candidate",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A one-owner workflow redesign looked like a P-domain implementation problem, but it became P/I mixed because success depends on governance load, proxy stakeholders, state continuity, invocation authenticity, audit boundaries, and future reuse.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"Issue can be sustained governance load without many human participants",
|
|
"anchor candidate for intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"code has relatively hard formal feedback; cognitive workflows do not have an equivalent compiler"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as a high-priority selector calibration anchor for intra_frame_mixed."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-flow-redesign-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
|
|
"title": "Complexity Placement Gate",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "complexity_placement_gate_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Complexity should not be judged by whether it looks large, but by what value it buys. Owner review confirmed this stays as a QPI case now and may later become evidence for a future model candidate, without introducing a third model in the MVP phase.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"do not introduce third model in this round",
|
|
"future model candidate evidence only",
|
|
"complexity must buy authenticity, fidelity, traceability, stoppability, authority clarity, or ROI"
|
|
],
|
|
"value_categories": [
|
|
"authenticity",
|
|
"independence",
|
|
"fidelity",
|
|
"structure",
|
|
"traceability",
|
|
"reviewability",
|
|
"reuse",
|
|
"downstream dependency value",
|
|
"stoppability",
|
|
"adjudicability",
|
|
"cost reasonableness / ROI"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as a QPI calibration case for justified versus unjustified process complexity."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"title": "Same Surface Term, Different Mechanisms",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "selector_calibration_multi_perspective_mechanism_ambiguity",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "mixed",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "medium"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "The same psychological-relational surface term can mean passive numbness, active cognitive withdrawal, or a mixed/unclear mechanism. Owner review adds that the source context is analysis of external content misframing, not neutral self-diagnosis.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"mark mechanism_ambiguity before route recommendation",
|
|
"do not generalize passive numbness vs active withdrawal into a universal field",
|
|
"QPI should request subject position, goal, relationship scene, time scale, and decision boundary before routing"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single_factor_totalization",
|
|
"over_pathologizing",
|
|
"violent_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as selector calibration for multi-perspective mechanism ambiguity in psychological-relational material."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"title": "I Domain Misread As a Label Question",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "label_question_false_positive_trap",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "issue_with_Q_component",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A label question becomes Issue-dominant when the label organizes identity, relationship boundaries, help-seeking, and future action. The label may still have a Q component, but it is no longer the dominant scarcity.",
|
|
"minimum_context": [
|
|
"problem_owner",
|
|
"label_use",
|
|
"decision_stake",
|
|
"recurrence",
|
|
"desired_output"
|
|
],
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"conditional what-is-X false-positive trap",
|
|
"do not escalate every concept lookup",
|
|
"escalate when the label affects identity, relationships, self-pathologizing, or long-term governance"
|
|
],
|
|
"wrong_route_to_avoid": [
|
|
"pure_Q_label_lookup",
|
|
"automatic_I_from_any_psychological_label"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single_factor_totalization",
|
|
"over_pathologizing"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Ask how the label is being used before deciding whether this is pure Q or Issue-dominant self-framing."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"title": "Single-Factor Totalization Compresses a System",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "single_factor_totalization_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The risk is not identifying a high-weight factor; it is treating one factor as complete causal closure when the source already shows coupled psychological, relational, cognitive, and identity mechanisms.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"distinguish trigger, maintaining condition, high-weight factor, current action lever, and causal totality",
|
|
"explanatory usefulness is not causal finality",
|
|
"a current lever cannot replace the system maintenance map"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single_factor_totalization",
|
|
"over_pathologizing",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as regression against single definitive root-cause output when coupled mechanisms are present."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
|
|
"title": "Intervention Framed as a One-Time Solution",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "one_time_solution_misroute_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The case guards against treating psychological-relational Issue as a one-time Problem. QPI should not design intervention; it can only decide whether a bounded local P subtask has enough context.",
|
|
"local_problem_conditions": [
|
|
"actor",
|
|
"object",
|
|
"local_goal",
|
|
"risk_boundary",
|
|
"feedback_signal",
|
|
"reversibility",
|
|
"non_terminal framing"
|
|
],
|
|
"wrong_route_to_avoid": [
|
|
"one_time_fix",
|
|
"three_step_cure",
|
|
"single_intervention_script"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Route as Issue unless a bounded local P subtask is explicitly scoped and non-terminal."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
|
|
"title": "External Help as Method Teaching vs Calibration Environment",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "supporting_external_authority_boundary_issue_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "External help is not framed as an intervention answer. The QPI issue is how external authority, calibration environment, dependency risk, and subject agency are bounded within self-governance.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"external_authority_boundary is a governance-load signal",
|
|
"does therapy work style inputs are low-confidence until context is known",
|
|
"psychological-relational inputs may be Q, P, or I depending on goal and decision stakes"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"single_factor_totalization",
|
|
"over_pathologizing"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as supporting Issue digest for external authority boundary and calibration environment."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
|
|
"title": "Time Scale Changes the QPI Classification",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "selector_calibration_time_scale_scope_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "mixed",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "QPI should not pretend to model full dynamic evolution, but it must record the time slice and classification scope so a local judgment is not treated as global truth.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"keep time_scale and classification_scope",
|
|
"treat same phenomenon different time scale as inter_viewpoint_divergence for now",
|
|
"do not add a new dynamic-scope enum in this round"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as selector calibration for short inputs whose Q/P/I route changes by time scale and decision boundary."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-007",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
|
|
"title": "QPI Mismatch Table for Psychological-Relational Material",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "qpi_mismatch_diagnostics_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "This is a model-hardening case: QPI needs mismatch diagnostics, not only final labels, for psychological-relational inputs.",
|
|
"wrong_route_to_avoid": [
|
|
"I_as_Q",
|
|
"I_as_P",
|
|
"P_as_I",
|
|
"over_pathologizing",
|
|
"moral_judgment_substitution",
|
|
"single_factor_totalization"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single_factor_totalization",
|
|
"over_pathologizing"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as regression foundation for QPI wrong-route detection."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-disappointment-008",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
|
|
"title": "Isolation as Protective Boundary or Overgeneralized Defense",
|
|
"owner_review_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",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "issue_with_local_P_candidates",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"classification_confidence": "high",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "This is the canonical anchor that Issue does not require multiple people. One-person self-governance can be Issue when the subject must continuously calibrate protection, openness, risk, energy, feedback, old defense, and new relational experiments.",
|
|
"governance_variables": [
|
|
"target",
|
|
"intensity",
|
|
"duration",
|
|
"benefit",
|
|
"cost",
|
|
"generalization",
|
|
"current_environment",
|
|
"energy_state",
|
|
"feedback",
|
|
"reversibility"
|
|
],
|
|
"local_problem_conditions": [
|
|
"value_assessment",
|
|
"actor",
|
|
"object",
|
|
"local_goal",
|
|
"risk_boundary",
|
|
"time_window",
|
|
"feedback_signal",
|
|
"reversibility",
|
|
"non_terminal framing"
|
|
],
|
|
"owner_model_notes": [
|
|
"Single-person self-governance can involve 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, Value Assessment Gate.",
|
|
"Do not add these as new QPI classification categories in this round."
|
|
],
|
|
"wrong_route_to_avoid": [
|
|
"binary_good_bad_judgment",
|
|
"I_as_P",
|
|
"over_pathologizing",
|
|
"moral_judgment_substitution"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"over_pathologizing",
|
|
"single_factor_totalization",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"moral_judgment_substitution"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Replace binary judgment with governance review, then run value assessment to decide whether full Issue governance or only a bounded local Problem step is warranted."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"title": "Hard Resource Gap Disguised As Compliance Documentation",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "hard_resource_gap_disguised_as_documentation_calibration_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "path_resource_trigger_with_compliance_governance_failure",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A hard physical resource gap is reframed as documentation, relabeling, and compliance packaging. The path/resource shortage triggers the case, but the QPI scarcity is governance/order failure around compliance authenticity and auditability.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"CT diagnosis notes must be translated into QPI governance language",
|
|
"hard_resource_gap_disguised_as_documentation_problem",
|
|
"internal anonymization acceptable; public use requires further generalization"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Separate legitimate remediation from compliance workaround risk before treating the gap as a solvable documentation problem."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"title": "Credential Metric Repair Damages Operational Continuity",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "credential_metric_operational_continuity_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "credential_metric_problem_escalated_into_staffing_governance_issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Credential metric repair improves the table while damaging the operating system. Role-function fit, operating memory, morale, labor risk, and continuity are violently reduced to credential count.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"operational_continuity is the summary focus",
|
|
"role mismatch and morale/labor risk are mechanisms",
|
|
"one of the clearest violent_reduction examples in this source"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Treat the selected staffing path as a governance issue before optimizing the credential metric."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"title": "Performance Decline With Incentive Backlash",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "performance_decline_incentive_backlash_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "Performance decline is misread as insufficient effort, while the underlying mechanism is incentive backlash produced by cost allocation, trust loss, and institutional design.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"organization-level rewrite could be intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"kept as inter_viewpoint_divergence because role contrast is the strongest calibration value",
|
|
"performance_decline_with_incentive_backlash"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Separate output symptom from incentive mechanism and identify which subject frame is being routed."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
|
|
"title": "Strategic Function Governed As Indicator Packaging Unit",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "strategic_function_role_authority_mismatch_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "strategic_role_without_strategic_operating_conditions",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "A strategic support function is blamed for not producing strategy while being denied resources, authority, trust, and executable space, then pulled back into indicator packaging.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"middle-leadership capability is a local P component, not the main classification",
|
|
"do not expand into a full person-level viewpoint table",
|
|
"public use may generalize planning function further"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Treat role-authority mismatch as the QPI issue before evaluating individual planning competence."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
|
|
"title": "Low-Cost Ambition Creates Physical-Law Contradictions",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "low_cost_ambition_pattern_level_issue_case",
|
|
"case_level": "pattern_level",
|
|
"subcases": [
|
|
"qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"qpi-draft-004"
|
|
],
|
|
"not_first_wave_regression": true,
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Multiple surface problems share one generating mechanism: low-cost ambition, target-resource inconsistency, and downstream contradiction absorption. Resource-dependent outcomes are treated as if command, packaging, or discipline could replace real exchange and capacity.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"whole-slice meta-case",
|
|
"pattern-level Issue allowed when surface problems share a generating mechanism",
|
|
"keep separate from narrow regression cases"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as digest / calibration for pattern-level Issue, not as first-wave regression."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
|
|
"title": "Data Completeness Masks Truthfulness Gap",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "data_completeness_truthfulness_gap_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"evidence_integrity_gap": "high",
|
|
"audit_authenticity_risk": "high",
|
|
"truthfulness_gap": "high",
|
|
"summary": "The data package can be internally complete while externally fragile because records, indicators, and narratives do not correspond to stable operational reality. The issue is untrusted data, not missing data.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"missing data versus untrusted data regression",
|
|
"facts are mostly known but inconvenient",
|
|
"evidence authenticity audit precedes resource planning"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Run evidence authenticity audit before treating the case as a resource-planning problem."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-007",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
|
|
"title": "Execution Lead Normalizes Workaround Translation",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "role_boundary_workaround_normalization_supporting_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "role_contextual",
|
|
"evidence_status": "owner_confirmed_from_interviews",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"primary_risk": "normalization_of_workaround / complicity_in_workaround",
|
|
"secondary_condition": "lack_of_escalation_channel",
|
|
"summary": "A competent execution lead converts impossible top-down directives into feasible-looking workaround action, extending the life of a broken governance premise.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"role-boundary governance support case",
|
|
"auxiliary inter_viewpoint_divergence sample only",
|
|
"owner confirmed through multiple participant conversations"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Identify whether execution competence is protecting system viability or normalizing workaround risk."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-development-office-008",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
|
|
"title": "Low-Cost Indicator Survival Cannibalizes Real Capability",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "umbrella_low_cost_indicator_survival_issue_case",
|
|
"case_level": "umbrella_organization_level",
|
|
"future_ct_relevance": true,
|
|
"current_scope": "QPI case library only",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "External review pressure is a trigger and accelerator, not the root cause. Internal low-investment, high-pressure, formalistic governance turns indicator survival into a process that cannibalizes real capability.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"umbrella digest anchor",
|
|
"do not replace narrower regression cases",
|
|
"do not route into future CT work in this round"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Use as umbrella organization-level QPI Issue while keeping current scope inside QPI."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"title": "AI Tool Request Becomes Evidence Legitimacy Issue",
|
|
"owner_review_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",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A tool-assisted material request becomes a QPI issue when AI is used to reverse-engineer evidence from desired conclusions. Missing evidence is the trigger, but the core scarcity is evidence legitimacy, audit authenticity, and tool-boundary governance.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"AI can organize evidence, but must not manufacture the evidentiary relationship",
|
|
"do not treat as simple material generation",
|
|
"current anonymization sufficient"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Require a traceable evidence inventory before tool-assisted drafting."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"title": "Credential Metric Creates Staffing-Ratio Deadlock",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "credential_metric_staffing_ratio_deadlock_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "External policy pressure triggers a staffing metric repair, but the organization creates a resource deadlock by counting credential value before proving real teaching-use value.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"external policy is trigger",
|
|
"staffing absorption is path/resource blocker",
|
|
"compliance value substituted for use value",
|
|
"keep separate from other staffing cases"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Model real workload absorption and use value before further recruitment or reclassification."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"title": "Policy Cleanup Masks Policy Memory And Integrity Backlash",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "policy_memory_integrity_backlash_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "policy_repair_with_policy_memory_and_trust_debt",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"proxy_stakeholders": [
|
|
"policy_memory"
|
|
],
|
|
"summary": "A policy correction that looks executable still has to govern policy memory: historical commitments, sunk costs, trust debt, and behavior shaped by prior incentives.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"false-negative trap for policy cleanup",
|
|
"incentive integrity plus trust repair",
|
|
"policy_memory is not a person"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Separate future integrity rules from transitional handling of people affected by prior incentives."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
|
|
"title": "Short-Term Packaging Substitutes For Long-Term Strategy",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "short_term_packaging_vs_long_term_strategy_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "A resource-feasible compromise becomes strategic myopia if short-term reportability and packaging are not tested against long-term organizational positioning.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"decision layer sees strategic alignment",
|
|
"execution layer sees reportability",
|
|
"market-facing frame sees communication and enrollment",
|
|
"keep role divergence visible"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Test resource-feasible compromise against long-term positioning before accepting it as strategy."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
|
|
"title": "Cross-Boundary Resource Reuse Fails Role Fit",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "cross_boundary_resource_reuse_issue_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "supporting",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "resource_reuse_problem_from_decision_layer_but_role_boundary_issue_from_operating_system",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"minimum_problem_evidence": [
|
|
"role_fit",
|
|
"learner_fit",
|
|
"schedule_fit",
|
|
"quality_standard",
|
|
"willingness",
|
|
"retraining_cost",
|
|
"compensation",
|
|
"pilot_feedback"
|
|
],
|
|
"summary": "Cross-boundary resource reuse is a violent reduction when different learners, capability models, time structures, and quality responsibilities are compressed into unused capacity.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"pair with staffing-ratio deadlock but do not merge",
|
|
"interest-class pilot may be plausible; direct core-course redeployment is not valid without retraining and compensation"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Verify role fit and transition cost before treating redeployment as a legitimate Problem."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
|
|
"title": "Outcome Decline With Contested Input Conditions",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "outcome_decline_quality_assurance_gap_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "outcome_decline_with_contested_input_conditions_and_quality_assurance_gap",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Input conditions may affect outcomes, but cannot replace audit of management levers. Isolated achievements can signal local capability, but primarily mask systemic outcome decline when broader quality indicators worsen.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"masking signal over latent capability",
|
|
"avoid assigning all causality to one function",
|
|
"quality assurance gap"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Build a quality assurance map linking complaints, outcomes, process controls, and owner accountability."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-007",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
|
|
"title": "Tool Choice Masks Digital Governance Boundary",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "digital_governance_boundary_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "Platform or AI deployment choice is not primarily a tool preference when the organization lacks digital governance criteria, data boundaries, lifecycle ownership, adoption standards, and migration responsibility.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"define digital governance criteria before platform selection",
|
|
"local-vs-cloud detail can remain",
|
|
"management and governance problem, not tool selection"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Define governance criteria and authority before selecting tools."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-academic-affairs-008",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
|
|
"title": "Operational Accident Reveals Bottom-Line Control Failure",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "bottom_line_control_failure_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "local_process_gap_revealing_bottom_line_control_failure",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A large activity without proper reporting, approval, and safety controls is a local process gap and a system-level signal that public safety, learner rights, and external compliance may not be treated as hard boundaries.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"concrete operating accident can reveal bottom-line control failure",
|
|
"not just a missing checklist",
|
|
"current anonymization sufficient"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Build hard-gate approval, reporting, risk ownership, participant safety controls, and stop rules."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"title": "Outcome Metric Pressure Becomes Reverse Accountability Power",
|
|
"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_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "outcome_improvement_problem_with_authority_redesign",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Employment outcome pressure reveals real teaching and market-alignment problems, but reverse accountability power turns a downstream service function into an upstream authority over teaching.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"hard outcome metric hiding authority redesign",
|
|
"separate outcome improvement from teaching authority transfer",
|
|
"reverse accountability power is owner-approved wording"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Define shared outcome governance, evidence standards, and limits on reverse accountability before redesigning authority."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"title": "Credential Metric Repair Becomes Compliance Exposure",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "credential_metric_compliance_exposure_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "credential_gap_with_compliance_exposure",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A credential gap may be a real resource problem, but externalized metric repair can turn credential holders into indicator products and create compliance legitimacy risk.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"cross-link academic affairs staffing-ratio deadlock without merging",
|
|
"evidence of substantive integration is a recommended check",
|
|
"metric repair is not automatically a valid path"
|
|
],
|
|
"evidence_gap": [
|
|
"substantive_integration_not_proven",
|
|
"credential_holder_role_in_teaching_or_research_unknown",
|
|
"compliance_review_boundary_unclear"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Check whether credentialed personnel are substantively integrated before accepting metric repair as a legitimate path."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"title": "Internal Accounting Mismatch Inflates Functional Performance",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "reported_metric_legitimacy_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "reported_metric_lineage_problem_as_performance_legitimacy_issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The accounting mismatch is not merely missing data; it is a performance legitimacy problem when non-recognized or department-standard figures are used to justify strategic authority.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"do not accept reported metrics at face value",
|
|
"data or logic errors should trigger evidence audit",
|
|
"performance legitimacy is dominant"
|
|
],
|
|
"evidence_gap": [
|
|
"recognized_financial_standard_unknown",
|
|
"reported_metric_lineage_unverified",
|
|
"department_accounting_basis_conflicts_with_group_standard"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Reconcile financial recognition standards before using reported contribution as strategic evidence."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
|
|
"title": "Outcome Promise Creates Student Pipeline Distortion",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "overpromising_student_pipeline_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "external_promise_and_student_pipeline_distortion",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Outcome promises can support recruitment only when delivery capacity and promise boundaries are real; otherwise they distort the student pipeline and change institutional responsibility.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"separate from reverse accountability case",
|
|
"test legitimate outcome orientation versus overpromising",
|
|
"promise boundary and delivery capacity are required"
|
|
],
|
|
"boundary_tests": [
|
|
"delivery_capacity",
|
|
"historical_outcome",
|
|
"employer_commitment",
|
|
"student_fit",
|
|
"risk_disclosure",
|
|
"verification",
|
|
"complaint_or_refund_boundary"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Require evidence that the promised outcome can be delivered before treating it as recruitment strategy."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
|
|
"title": "High Outcome Data Masks Data Quality Risk",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "high_metric_value_low_credibility_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "outcome_metric_production_governance_problem",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "High outcome metrics do not prove high metric credibility. When KPI pressure shapes data production, QPI must audit how data is produced, interpreted, and used for authority.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"distinguish high metric value from high metric credibility",
|
|
"KPI pressure in Issue domain can produce the data it wants to see",
|
|
"evidence_gap should be explicit"
|
|
],
|
|
"evidence_gap": [
|
|
"outcome_data_production_mechanism",
|
|
"student_level_verification",
|
|
"employer_verification",
|
|
"coercion_or_compliance_behavior_risk",
|
|
"metric_use_in_authority_expansion"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Audit the production mechanism behind outcome data before using high metrics as proof of institutional health."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
|
|
"title": "Employer Coordination Asset Remains Isolated From Teaching",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "real_external_asset_integration_boundary_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "boundary_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "real_external_asset_with_unproven_learning_integration_and_governance_risk",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The external employer asset may be real, but it is a boundary mixed case when the asset functions as showcase material or internship proof rather than integrated student capability building.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"not a pure positive contrast case",
|
|
"Problem if only integration path is missing",
|
|
"mixed if proof value displaces learning value"
|
|
],
|
|
"minimum_integration_evidence": [
|
|
"curriculum_mapping",
|
|
"student_project",
|
|
"assessment_rubric",
|
|
"mentor_input",
|
|
"teacher_integration",
|
|
"portfolio_evidence",
|
|
"employer_feedback",
|
|
"outcome_verification",
|
|
"incentive_alignment"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"violent_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Ask for the operational bridge from employer asset to curriculum, projects, assessment, and verified learning outcomes."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-007",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
|
|
"title": "Functional Performance Gains Justify Power Expansion Too Quickly",
|
|
"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_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "asset_recognition_to_authority_transfer",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Recognizing a function's assets or achievements is not the same as transferring system-level authority to that function. Local performance can be maliciously inflated into governance control.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"keep separate from reverse accountability mechanism",
|
|
"malicious_inflation applies",
|
|
"distinguish asset_recognition from authority_transfer"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Do not infer authority transfer from asset recognition; define scope, checks, and evidence standards first."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-employment-entrepreneurship-008",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
|
|
"title": "Survival Strategy Reframes Education As Transactional Output",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "transactional_education_issue_anchor",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"case_level": "umbrella_issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Under survival pressure, the organization risks sliding from education capability building into transactional output logic, where employment, revenue, and compliance metrics take over the definition of education value.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"Issue anchor for this group",
|
|
"do not split because 001-007 already carry narrower decompositions",
|
|
"market survival metrics cannot replace education quality"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Govern the value definition before allowing employment, revenue, or compliance metrics to take over institutional identity."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-001",
|
|
"title": "Strategic Target Exceeds Operating Reality",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "target_authenticity_gap_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "capability_and_market_gap_under_inauthentic_target_pressure",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"reusable_pattern": "target_authenticity_gap",
|
|
"summary": "A support-oriented technical function is pushed toward industrialized revenue goals without credible capability, market, resource, and validation bridges.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"distinguish milestone target from terminal target",
|
|
"require bridge evidence",
|
|
"high targets become fraud pressure when no validated bridge exists"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Build staged bridge evidence before accepting the target as an execution mandate."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-002",
|
|
"title": "Equipment-Led Solutionism Without Market Closure",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "equipment_led_solutionism_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "asset_first_solutionism_without_market_or_operator_readiness",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The issue is not equipment selection but substituting asset purchase for demand validation, operator competence, execution standards, safety, and unit economics.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"equipment_led_solutionism",
|
|
"asset_first_solutionism",
|
|
"do_not_treat_as_execution_problem_until_gates_passed"
|
|
],
|
|
"gate_conditions": [
|
|
"demand_proof",
|
|
"operator_readiness",
|
|
"safety_validation",
|
|
"unit_economics",
|
|
"pilot_result"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Validate demand and operators before equipment; otherwise the equipment is a sunk-cost generator, not capability."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-003",
|
|
"title": "Compliance Shortcut Becomes Structural Constraint",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "shortcut_debt_hard_boundary_issue_anchor",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": false,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "shortcut_debt_meets_hard_boundary",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The organization used Problem-style shortcuts to absorb an Issue-level capability and legitimacy gap until regulation, accidents, audit, or trust creates a hard boundary.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"not merely compliance boundary hardening",
|
|
"shortcut debt",
|
|
"do not add compliance_risk as required QPI field yet"
|
|
],
|
|
"optional_risk_flags": {
|
|
"compliance_legitimacy_risk": "high",
|
|
"audit_exposure": "high",
|
|
"shortcut_debt": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Treat staffing as shortcut debt meeting a hard boundary, not as a simple headcount patch."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-004",
|
|
"title": "Credential Integrity Treated As Mere Usability",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "credential_integrity_policy_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "credential_integrity_treated_as_usability",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"no_personnel_verdict": true,
|
|
"route_to_policy_review_not_person_judgment": true,
|
|
"summary": "QPI should not judge whether a specific person is usable or deceptive; it should identify when credential anomalies expose screening, exception, and risk-ownership governance gaps.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"no personnel verdict",
|
|
"evidence integrity plus compliance order",
|
|
"policy review not person judgment"
|
|
],
|
|
"evidence_gap": [
|
|
"credential_verification_lineage",
|
|
"exception_policy_unknown",
|
|
"risk_owner_unknown"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Review screening, exception policy, and risk ownership before making convenience-based staffing decisions."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-005",
|
|
"title": "Production Capability Without Acquisition Channel",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "production_without_market_closure_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "market_source_unknown_because_business_purpose_is_misframed_as_production_capacity",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "For a business actor, production capability without a consumer, acquisition channel, or profit loop is not merely a data question; it is a first-principle business-purpose mismatch.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"not first classified as question in this context",
|
|
"production is not business closure",
|
|
"research context would differ"
|
|
],
|
|
"minimum_q_to_p_evidence": [
|
|
"problem_owner",
|
|
"primary_purpose",
|
|
"customer_segment",
|
|
"demand_signal",
|
|
"acquisition_channel",
|
|
"delivery_fit",
|
|
"unit_economics"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"malicious_inflation"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Clarify the subject's purpose and business loop before treating production capability as viability."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-006",
|
|
"title": "Micro-Intervention Creates Execution Fatigue",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "execution_fatigue_decision_rights_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "execution_fatigue_as_decision_rights_architecture_failure",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Execution fatigue may be violently reduced to low motivation, but QPI must test whether decision rights, role boundaries, and leadership intervention patterns are creating exhaustion.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"distinguish healthy hands-on leadership from destructive micro-control",
|
|
"outsider leading experts versus expert strong leader",
|
|
"avoid person-motivation reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"evidence_to_distinguish": [
|
|
"domain_competence",
|
|
"decision_accuracy",
|
|
"autonomy_preservation",
|
|
"feedback_loop",
|
|
"bottleneck_effect",
|
|
"learning_effect",
|
|
"error_ownership",
|
|
"business_fit"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Diagnose decision-rights architecture before blaming execution motivation."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-007",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-007",
|
|
"title": "Inherited Project May Be Hidden Liability",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "inherited_asset_liability_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "inherited_asset_may_hide_operating_liability",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "data",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "medium"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"reusable_pattern": "asset_or_liability_ambiguity",
|
|
"summary": "An inherited platform or certification may be a genuine asset, but transfer from a stronger unit to a weaker unit is a risk signal until history, cost, responsibility, and prior-owner exit reasons are checked.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"missing transfer due diligence",
|
|
"adverse selection risk",
|
|
"organizational dumping risk translated for review"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Investigate transfer history, operating cost, responsibility boundary, and prior owner exit reason before treating the project as an asset."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-engineering-center-008",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-eng-008",
|
|
"title": "Personnel Redeployment Without Legitimate Path",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "personnel_transition_governance_issue_anchor",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "capability_upgrade_requires_legitimate_personnel_transition_path",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Legacy staff mismatch under a new technical direction is not a simple replacement task; it requires lawful, budgeted, capability-oriented transition paths and trust-cost governance.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"keep separate from compliance staffing",
|
|
"requires legal review",
|
|
"avoid overclaiming labor-law conclusions"
|
|
],
|
|
"minimum_context": [
|
|
"employment_status",
|
|
"contract_terms",
|
|
"performance_record",
|
|
"redeployment_option",
|
|
"training_offer",
|
|
"compensation_budget",
|
|
"consultation_process",
|
|
"compliance_review",
|
|
"operational_need",
|
|
"dignity_and_trust_cost"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Define legal, budget, training, redeployment, and consultation paths before treating staff mismatch as execution-only."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-001",
|
|
"title": "Compliance Risk Packaged As Enrollment Retention",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "compliance_boundary_retention_issue_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "retention_workaround_crosses_compliance_boundary",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A retention workaround becomes Issue-level when it changes the institution's compliance posture, credential trust, audit exposure, and future complaint risk.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"pathway adjustment must obey compliance red lines",
|
|
"retention pressure does not authorize institutional-risk change",
|
|
"all generalized details are safe for digest"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Separate retention problem-solving from compliance judgment before designing any replacement pathway."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-002",
|
|
"title": "Physical Capacity Treated As Negotiable Resource",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "capacity_gate_cross_unit_conflict_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "cross_unit_conflict_under_missing_hard_capacity_gate",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The hard resource gap is physical capacity, but the organizational failure is cross-unit conflict under a missing capacity gate when growth promises require displacing other units.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"simple logistics no-call versus capacity governance call",
|
|
"cross-unit conflict is key failure expression",
|
|
"hard capacity gate needed"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Verify capacity and create cross-unit arbitration before promising growth."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-003",
|
|
"title": "Performance-Backed Role Inflation",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "performance_backed_role_inflation_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_confidence": "medium",
|
|
"classification_note": "performance_backed_role_inflation",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Strong performance may deserve recognition, but it cannot be directly converted into structural authority, title, external representation, or exception rules without accountability design.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"power without accountability is a risk consequence",
|
|
"performance-backed role inflation is the abstraction",
|
|
"include proxy stakeholders lightly"
|
|
],
|
|
"affected_stakeholders": [
|
|
"future_management",
|
|
"adjacent_units",
|
|
"external_partners"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Define rule-based authority and accountability before granting upgraded status."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-004",
|
|
"title": "Strategic Chain Collapsed Into Front-End Sales",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "inter_viewpoint_chain_vs_sales_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "strategic_object_and_operational_object_are_misaligned",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "The execution layer frames the task as lead generation and conversion, while the decision layer frames it as full education-chain strategy and outcome accountability.",
|
|
"classification_by_viewpoint": {
|
|
"execution_layer": {
|
|
"classification": "problem",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
|
|
"frame": "lead_generation_and_conversion"
|
|
},
|
|
"decision_layer": {
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"frame": "full_chain_strategy_and_outcome_accountability"
|
|
},
|
|
"organization_level": {
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"frame": "strategic_object_and_operational_object_are_misaligned"
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"clearest inter_viewpoint_divergence example in this source",
|
|
"do not collapse viewpoints into one operational label"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"malicious_inflation"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Separate viewpoint classifications before deciding which frame governs resources."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-005",
|
|
"title": "Inflated Credential Metrics As Governance Distortion",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "metric_distortion_governance_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "metric_fact_verification_embedded_in_governance_distortion",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The metric is not just fact scarcity once it is embedded in evaluation pressure, execution-layer reporting, and decision-layer concern about short-termism.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"not question-first in this source",
|
|
"good KPI links long-term goals, real capability, multi-party value, and traceable evidence",
|
|
"credential category need not be further generalized"
|
|
],
|
|
"governance_remediation_evidence": [
|
|
"metric_used_for_assessment_reporting_compliance_or_resource_competition",
|
|
"metric_decoupled_from_real_delivery_capacity",
|
|
"metric_incentivizes_short_term_number_assembly",
|
|
"metric_benefits_one_unit_while_other_units_absorb_cost",
|
|
"metric_fails_multi_win_alignment",
|
|
"traceable_evidence_chain_missing",
|
|
"metric_fails_to_reflect_student_value_teaching_value_or_org_capability"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Audit metric lineage and governance incentives before accepting the indicator as capability evidence."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-006",
|
|
"title": "Pricing Deadlock Misread As Simple Market Weakness",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "high_ticket_trust_system_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "pricing_deadlock_as_trust_system_failure_in_high_ticket_education_sales",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The pricing deadlock is a surface symptom; in high-ticket education sales, the deeper Issue is whether the organization can build trust through credible promises, verifiable outcomes, and coordinated delivery.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"related owner model APTC is context, not a new repo model",
|
|
"keep as independent sales-system case",
|
|
"legacy pricing creates fairness debt"
|
|
],
|
|
"related_owner_model": [
|
|
"APTC_trust_conversion_funnel"
|
|
],
|
|
"inherited_pricing_terms": [
|
|
"legacy_price_value_mismatch",
|
|
"inherited_pricing_constraint",
|
|
"historical_price_anchor_with_fairness_debt"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Analyze the trust system before changing price or using workaround enrollment tactics."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-007",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-007",
|
|
"title": "High-Performing Capability Not Yet Institutionalized",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "non_institutionalized_capability_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "supporting_governance_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "high_performing_capability_not_yet_institutionalized",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "The issue is not that organizational capability is privatized, but that high-performing individual or small-team capability has not been institutionalized into transferable, auditable, resilient organizational capability.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"link to role inflation but do not merge",
|
|
"key-person dependency risk",
|
|
"preserve execution energy while institutionalizing capability"
|
|
],
|
|
"linked_case": "qpi-draft-intl-003",
|
|
"risk_tags": [
|
|
"key_person_dependency",
|
|
"capability_not_institutionalized",
|
|
"continuity_risk"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Create capability capture, succession, transparency, and incentive mechanisms without destroying the team's execution energy."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-international-college-008",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-intl-008",
|
|
"title": "Strong External Channel Used To Justify Risky Internal Expansion",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "real_asset_unready_expansion_synthesis_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "issue_anchor",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "real_external_asset_used_as_license_for_unready_internal_expansion",
|
|
"case_level": "synthesis_case",
|
|
"do_not_merge": true,
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A real external channel is an asset, but it becomes contaminated if used to license expansion before internal delivery, compliance, quality, and capacity are ready.",
|
|
"linked_cases": [
|
|
"qpi-draft-intl-001",
|
|
"qpi-draft-intl-002",
|
|
"qpi-draft-intl-006",
|
|
"qpi-draft-intl-007"
|
|
],
|
|
"risk_tags": [
|
|
"real_asset_implies_safe_expansion",
|
|
"asset_contamination_risk",
|
|
"channel_trust_degradation"
|
|
],
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"higher-level synthesis case",
|
|
"real external asset does not mean safe internal expansion",
|
|
"define prohibited uses before scaling"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Define protected-asset boundaries and prohibited internal uses before scaling."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-001",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"title": "Tax-Preference Goal Becomes Research Identity Simulation",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "research_identity_simulation_umbrella_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"case_level": "umbrella_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "research_identity_simulation_under_tax_preference_pressure",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"linked_cases": [
|
|
"qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"qpi-draft-004",
|
|
"qpi-draft-005",
|
|
"qpi-draft-008"
|
|
],
|
|
"summary": "The organization lacks real research capability but tries to simulate research identity through people, expenses, patents, papers, and evidence packaging to obtain external preferential status.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"umbrella case for this source",
|
|
"research identity simulation is owner-approved",
|
|
"capability building must be separated from evidence simulation"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Separate legitimate research capability building from identity simulation and compliance red-line risk."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-002",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-002",
|
|
"title": "Research Staff Count Treated As Movable Accounting Data",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "research_capacity_accounting_reduction_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_confidence": "medium",
|
|
"classification_note": "research_capacity_reduced_to_accounting_category",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"requires_compliance_review": true,
|
|
"summary": "The organization has real research staff and cost shortages, but the key QPI risk is violent reduction of research capability and governance into spreadsheet categories.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"not inter-viewpoint divergence",
|
|
"data completeness is not truthfulness",
|
|
"do not output high-confidence legal or tax conclusion"
|
|
],
|
|
"risk_tags": [
|
|
"research_capacity_reduced_to_accounting_category",
|
|
"data_completeness_is_not_truthfulness",
|
|
"evidence_legitimacy"
|
|
],
|
|
"evidence_gap": [
|
|
"actual_research_role_evidence",
|
|
"payroll_category_validity",
|
|
"research_contribution_trace"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Verify actual research roles, payroll category validity, and research contribution traces before accepting the metric package."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-003",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-003",
|
|
"title": "Transactional Research Assets Create Audit Fragility",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "transactional_research_asset_subcase",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "evidence_case",
|
|
"case_status": "keep_as_subcase",
|
|
"parent_case": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "transactional_research_assets_as_research_identity_simulation_mechanism",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "Transactional research assets are a concrete mechanism under the umbrella research-identity simulation case: research evidence is treated as a tradable token rather than trace of real capability.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"keep as subcase rather than delete",
|
|
"transactional evidence is not real capability",
|
|
"parent is qpi-draft-001"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Check whether research evidence is authentic capability trace or transactional identity simulation."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-004",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-004",
|
|
"title": "Ranking Anxiety Converts Research Into Purchasable Metrics",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "ranking_metric_reduction_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "research_value_reduced_to_ranking_inputs",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"primary_risk": "violent_reduction",
|
|
"secondary_risk": "malicious_inflation",
|
|
"selector_trap": [
|
|
"how_to_improve_ranking_quickly",
|
|
"metric_improvement_without_capability_improvement"
|
|
],
|
|
"summary": "Ranking pressure becomes Issue-level when research value, culture, talent development, and knowledge production are reduced to purchasable, reportable, sprintable metric inputs.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"violent reduction is primary",
|
|
"quick ranking improvement can be a selector trap",
|
|
"ranking cannot define research value"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"malicious_inflation",
|
|
"tool_solutionism",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Route quick-ranking pressure to governance review when it rewards metric improvement without capability improvement."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-005",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-005",
|
|
"title": "High-Level Talent Becomes Role-Mismatched Display Asset",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "high_level_talent_role_governance_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"case_status": "keep_independent",
|
|
"linked_to": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "mixed",
|
|
"classification_note": "role_governance_issue_with_work_design_problem_inside",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"proxy_stakeholders": [
|
|
"high_level_talent"
|
|
],
|
|
"summary": "High-level talent is not merely a credential asset. Without role design, platform, and meaningful work, talent acquisition becomes display consumption rather than capability building.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"keep independent but link to umbrella case",
|
|
"include high_level_talent proxy stakeholder",
|
|
"talent-as-indicator reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"risk_tags": [
|
|
"talent_as_indicator_reduction",
|
|
"role_mismatch",
|
|
"capability_underutilization",
|
|
"retention_risk"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Design role, platform, and task fit before treating the hire as research capability."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-006",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-006",
|
|
"title": "Facility Capacity Risk Misread As Expansion Logistics",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "hard_capacity_constraint_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "boundary_case",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "problem",
|
|
"classification_note": "hard_capacity_problem_with_visible_downstream_governance_risk",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "path_resource",
|
|
"governance_risk": "medium",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "high",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "medium"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "not_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "This is primarily a hard-capacity Problem: physical space, beds, facilities, and capacity cannot be solved by administrative command, though downstream governance risk is visible.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"related to international capacity case but classified lower",
|
|
"hard constraint cannot be solved by command",
|
|
"may escalate to mixed if promises and displacement dominate"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Verify capacity and commitments, then solve through investment, cap, delay, redesign, or lower commitments."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-007",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-007",
|
|
"title": "Safety Responsibility Vacuum Covered By Emergency Command",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "accountability_vacuum_q_as_i_calibration_case",
|
|
"selector_calibration_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"classification_scope": "subject_contextual",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "responsibility_question_reveals_accountability_architecture_gap",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "intra_frame_mixed",
|
|
"summary": "A seemingly small responsibility question reveals an accountability architecture gap when safety tasks have no stable owner, evidence trail, process, or escalation route.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"Q-like responsibility question is actually Issue",
|
|
"command substitution for process",
|
|
"include despite small slice"
|
|
],
|
|
"risk_tags": [
|
|
"command_substitution_for_process",
|
|
"safety_accountability_vacuum",
|
|
"Q_as_I_trap"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Map owner, evidence trail, process, and escalation rule before treating the task as personal assignment."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"case_id": "qpi-year-end-research-office-008",
|
|
"source_draft_case_id": "qpi-draft-008",
|
|
"title": "Compliance Risk Defined Only By Immediate Penalty",
|
|
"owner_review_status": "owner_reviewed",
|
|
"owner_approved_for_digest": true,
|
|
"digest_role": "punishment_state_vs_integrity_state_regression_case",
|
|
"regression_candidate": "high_priority",
|
|
"case_status": "keep_independent",
|
|
"linked_to": "qpi-draft-001",
|
|
"classification_scope": "multi_perspective",
|
|
"is_provisional": true,
|
|
"classification": "issue",
|
|
"classification_note": "punishment_state_vs_integrity_state",
|
|
"dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order",
|
|
"scarcity_profile": {
|
|
"data_scarcity": "medium",
|
|
"path_or_resource_scarcity": "low",
|
|
"consensus_or_order_scarcity": "high"
|
|
},
|
|
"mixed_or_multi_perspective": "inter_viewpoint_divergence",
|
|
"summary": "The internal punishment-status frame treats no penalty as low risk; the integrity-status frame treats absence of immediate punishment as insufficient evidence of legitimacy.",
|
|
"routing_notes": [
|
|
"keep independent and link to umbrella case",
|
|
"absence of penalty is not legitimacy",
|
|
"compliance minimum-punishment game"
|
|
],
|
|
"risk_tags": [
|
|
"punishment_state_frame",
|
|
"absence_of_penalty_is_not_legitimacy",
|
|
"compliance_minimum_game"
|
|
],
|
|
"misframing_risks": [
|
|
"violent_reduction",
|
|
"single-cause_reduction",
|
|
"premature_classification"
|
|
],
|
|
"recommended_next_step": "Separate penalty-status inquiry from integrity-status review and define substantive compliance criteria."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|