APP-RMP-03 — Factory-closure historical transfer probe

A public narrative attributes a factory closure to one executive directive. An independent historian recovers a bounded question, available archives and testimony, source provenance and silences, rival chronology, access and harm constraints, and a useful stop.

RMP.1 can return an authenticated source answer, a historical ResearchQuestionBrief, or a source/access hold. RMP.2 uses sufficient evidence or compares useful historical/source-critical and corpus-synthesis alternatives with no new study. A selected historical design needs the discriminating sources and provenance on which its comparison depends. A missing access or provenance result holds only a chronology-design selection still needed; when no worthwhile obtainable study is selected, the current allocation finishes with its evidence limit. An experimental hierarchy is not imported.

On the selected historical branch, RMP.3 specifies which document series and testimony can distinguish the executive directive from the rival earlier chronology, including provenance, dating, access and transcription needs. RMP.4 preserves inspected sources separately from catalogue descriptions, contrary material, transformations and the reasons particular sources entered the account. If the earlier archive series is inaccessible, its silence cannot count as evidence that no earlier decision existed. Return the defeated chronology comparison while preserving the usable material.

A different question—how former workers experienced the closure—may use a supplied reflexive qualitative approach. Refining a prompt after an encounter can preserve that question when the change and its reasons are retained. Replacing it with a population-wide prevalence estimate requires new question/design work. The trace preserves the researcher’s contribution and permitted grounding excerpts rather than imposing coder agreement as a universal test. RMP.5 supplies the method-appropriate examination of the historical or qualitative claim using those qualified inputs. If an authenticated earlier record becomes available, it can defeat the chronology in which the attributed change first occurred after the directive without proving what caused the earlier change. For the qualitative use, preserve a situated interpretation and discordant material; a new prevalence or causal claim requires its own support. RMP.6 can choose a useful corroboration or transfer examination without imposing a universal repeatability test.

In a further supplied corpus, several later accounts say a public protest prompted the decision to close. RMP.7 finds that they share a retrospective memoir; an authenticated record dates that decision before the protest. The supported chronology defeats that decision-causation claim, while the cause of the decision and any effect on later implementation remain unresolved. RMP.8 carries the same identified correction to a museum description that actually relied on it, through the responsible editor and applicable source-access terms. This added corpus question does not change the earlier directive comparison into the same event or explanation.