C.22.2:20 - Worked Slices and Anti-Cases

C.22.2:20.1 - Five-Case Worked Slices

These rows are recognition slices, not complete Thin cards. Before using one, complete the exact Thin contract in C.22.2:2.1; add the relation cues shown here only when they change that card’s next use. The compact filled Thin example follows in 20.1a.

Case	Problem-side signal	Repaired card use	Boundary preserved
AI and human task transfer rework	Repeated rework appears after transfer between human and agent.	Stabilize signal, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, acceptance probe, and safe-call or Work relation before another delegation.	The card is not a prompt retry instruction and does not justify another delegation.
Musical mastery tempo drift	Practice tempo drifts away from the intended mastery band.	State the temporal claim, practice scheme and scope, acceptance probe, and `C.27` relation when tempo, rhythm, recovery, or learning rate changes the next use.	A trend line is not an intervention model or evidence of mastery.
Customer-service escalation after a policy or interface change	Escalation volume rises after the change.	Stabilize affected customer hand-off, acceptance probe, risk boundary, measurement relation, and causal-use relation when that relation is being made.	Escalation volume is not an automatic fix request, staffing plan, rollback order, or causal proof.
Literature-synthesis anomaly before method selection	An anomaly does not fit current category labels.	Preserve rival formulation, EntityOfConcern, evidence need, bridge, representation, or mathematical-lens relation when that relation is being made, and next discrimination action.	The anomaly is not proof for a new theory or a selected research method.
Selected-set candidate before P2W	A retained candidate from a front or pool looks promising.	Preserve `sourceSetRef`, source-set kind, selection or retention criterion, non-scalar next use, and only the currentness or window on which that use relies.	Set membership is not selected-solution proof, priority score, or work authorization.

C.22.2:20.1a - Compact P2W-ready Disposition Slice

A support team sees repeated failed hand-offs after a new interface policy. The incoming request says “rewrite the escalation workflow.” A conforming ProblemCard first repairs the problem-side record instead of accepting the work-shaped request.

Card field	Filled value
Source signal	Escalations reopen after hand-off from first-line support to specialist support.
Problem-side EntityOfConcern	The hand-off ambiguity at the support interface, not the whole escalation process.
Effective ReferenceScheme and ClaimScope	Scheme: support-interface hand-off under the new policy edition. ClaimScope: SupportOps-EU.
Claim family	Anticipated-condition claim: while the ambiguity remains under the current policy wording, reopened escalations are expected to continue. The card asserts no actual-PFR occurrence, causal-use result, or solvability result.
Not-wish, not-ticket, and not-preselected-Work reason	The incoming request to “rewrite the escalation workflow” is a proposed Work request. It neither identifies the joint concern nor shows that a rewrite is the needed Method or Work.
Improvement check or acceptance probe	Sample reopened cases; accepted improvement means fewer reopened hand-offs within that ClaimScope and window without increasing unresolved safety, compliance, or customer-impact exceptions.
Honest next use	Use E.18.1 to carry only the hand-off-ambiguity claim and acceptance probe into one next relation question. Do not select a method, approve a rewrite, pass a gate, or authorize Work.
Qualification window (current here)	Two-week incident window under the stated policy edition.
Problem-formulation follow-up reason (current here)	Separate interface wording, System, assignment, Method, and Work alignment, evidence, currentness, and possible policy-boundary relations before any Method or WorkPlan choice.
Validation boundary (current here)	Same support interface, policy edition, ClaimScope, incident window, and source logs; refresh if the scheme, scope, source logs, window, or acceptance probe changes.
Readiness disposition	`P2W-ready` only for the narrow next use above, because the card carries the ambiguity claim, rejects the preselected Work request, and supplies an acceptance probe.
Subject-pattern cues (current here)	`A.6` for policy or interface wording; `A.2`, `A.2.1`, `F.6`, and `A.15` for System, assignment, Method, and Work alignment; `A.10` only if evidence reliance becomes current; `G.11` for currentness; `A.21` only if a gate claim later becomes current.

The P2W export is narrow: signal, joint EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, claim family, not-wish or not-preselected-Work reason, improvement check or acceptance probe, and honest next use. In this case it also carries the qualification window, validation boundary, follow-up reason, and subject-pattern cues because the stated next use relies on them. Add freshness, unknown handling, source-set, representation, evidence, or other conditional content only when it is current. If the improvement check or acceptance probe is missing, the card stays reviewable-only or source-finding and cannot claim P2W-ready. If the next user wants evidence sufficiency, a gate decision, Work authorization, or selected method, the card preserves the cue and its direct governor carries that downstream claim.

C.22.2:20.1b - Card/PFR Cardinality Replay

Every PFR reference below designates a world-side occurrence established under C.22.PFR; no card-side fact supplies its participants, adverse extent, or identity. PFR-InspectionAssignment-17 and later PFR-InspectionAssignment-18 are the two Robot-7 occurrences replayed in C.22.PFR:5.

For the unrelated branch, InspectionReleaseAssignment is a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. Occurrence InspectionAssignment-27 has admitted System Robot-8 as holder and local kind InspectorSystemRole as assigned-kind value. It obtains without interruption on [2026-07-13T10:00, 2026-07-13T10:30]; MaintenanceRoles-2026, Maintenance-Scheme-A, and the interval description interpret or describe the assertion but are not extra assignment participants.

Robot8ReleaseCriterionApplicability-4 uses predicate NoInspectorSystemRoleBeforeValidation-v2, maps the occurrence’s assigned-kind participant to the adverse nominal coordinate and its holder to Robot-8, and names Robot-8, its release ClaimScope, and [2026-07-13T09:30, 2026-07-13T12:00] as the other applicability participants. Those facts establish PFR-InspectionAssignment-27 on [2026-07-13T10:00, 2026-07-13T10:30] under C.22.PFR.

Branch	Exact card-side objects	Mechanically recoverable result
One joint multi-PFR card	`Robot7ReleaseEpisodesCard-E1 = <CG-Robot7-ReleaseEpisodes-E1, Robot-7, Maintenance-Scheme-A>`. The exact ClaimGraph contains two affirmative assertion nodes designating `PFR-InspectionAssignment-17` and `PFR-InspectionAssignment-18`. A.1 independently identifies `Robot-7 : U.System`, and both PFRs have that same System as their applicability-derived problem-for entity.	One ClaimGraph has one direct, genuinely joint EntityOfConcern, so one card carries both PFR references. The card records two occurrences; it does not merge them.
Unrelated PFRs force split	Proposed `CG-Mixed-RobotReleaseProblems-E0` contains `PFR-InspectionAssignment-17` about A.1-identified `Robot-7` and `PFR-InspectionAssignment-27` about separately A.1-identified `Robot-8`. No direct pattern in this replay identifies one joint EntityOfConcern for those claims; a list of the two Systems is not one.	`E0` cannot constitute one ProblemCard. Split it into `CG-Robot7-ReleaseProblem-E1` in `Robot7ReleaseProblemCard-E1` and `CG-Robot8-ReleaseProblem-E1` in `Robot8ReleaseProblemCard-E1`, each with its own exact System EntityOfConcern and effective scheme.
Several cards retain one PFR	`Robot7SafetyCard-E1 = <CG-Robot7-Safety-E1, Robot-7, RobotSafety-Scheme-A>` qualifies its designation by `SafetyAssuranceViewpoint-E1` and receiving use `AutonomousInspectionReleaseReview-E1`. `Robot7StaffingCard-E1 = <CG-Robot7-Staffing-E1, Robot-7, MaintenancePlanning-Scheme-B>` qualifies its designation by `MaintenancePlanningViewpoint-E1` and receiving use `InspectionAssignmentRepairPlanning-E1`. Both exact ClaimGraphs designate `PFR-InspectionAssignment-17`.	The differing ClaimGraphs, schemes, viewpoints, and receiving uses identify or qualify two cards and their claims; the PFR reference remains exactly `PFR-InspectionAssignment-17`. Revising, merging, splitting, publishing, or replacing either card changes no PFR participant or adverse episode.

C.22.2:20.2 - Anti-Cases

Anti-case	Correct result
The card is cited as safety acceptance, gate passage, tool-call action invitation, or work authorization.	Apply the pattern for the safety, gate, autonomy, work, evidence, provenance, or assurance claim; keep only the problem-side cue in the card.
A mathematical phrase is added because it sounds rigorous.	Use `C.29` only when the candidate structure, preserved and lost structure, payoff, follow-up reason, and stop condition are recoverable.
A source archive produces a “best” problem by one score.	Use source-set and selected-set patterns; the card carries a non-scalar source-set reference, criterion, and problem-side next use.