# Public questions only. Blind-audited scorer acceptance is tracked separately in
# MiniWorldAcceptanceV1.toml; neither artifact is corpus evidence.
# Unscored scenario tagging settled by PD-53.
schema = "clevermemory.miniworld-question-suite.v1"
corpus_id = "miniworld-fictional-enterprise-v1"
scenario_count = 55
content_policy = "Stable IDs, natural questions, and paraphrases only; never ingest this suite as corpus evidence."
pre_execution_label_policy = "Gap-bearing labels are frozen corpus-coverage expectations, not answers, routes, proofs, or scorer gold."
gap_bearing_scenario_ids = ["MWQ-002", "MWQ-004", "MWQ-005", "MWQ-006", "MWQ-035"]
supported_or_proposal_scenario_count = 50

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-001"
question = "What actually caused IR-2026-017, what did the company originally say caused it, and what remained true after the final correction?"
paraphrases = ["Give me the current account of the North Harbor incident and explain exactly what changed from the first customer update."]
gold = "Both conditions contributed: certificate renewal timing and retry throttling; neither factor alone explains every observed delay. The original 17:11 UTC customer update said the interruption was “caused by an expired network certificate” — superseded as a single-cause conclusion, preserved, not deleted. Unchanged by the correction: some telemetry and alerts were delayed, local collection remained active, no customer data was lost, and delayed measurements were backfilled from local buffers."
antigold = "The initial cause without noting the correction."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-002"
question = "After the first MEE-26 pilot cycle, what had the team demonstrated, what was still open, and was the project complete?"
paraphrases = ["How far had MEE-26 really progressed by its first retrospective, and what can the records not establish yet?"]
gold = "Demonstrated: one successful Regional Change Windows reconnect pilot, CHG-2026-204 — “one pilot,” not the workstream. Still open: the retrospective's six unchecked actions, the Incident Chronicle review-packet checklist, supplier-identity training (booked, not delivered), and production approval. Not complete: no workstream was marked complete, and the charter's planned completion is 2026-11-30."
antigold = "Declaring the MEE-26 project complete based solely on the successful CHG-2026-204 reconnect pilot."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-003"
question = "Did A. Lin approve the reconnect design and later prepare the Q3 cost work?"
paraphrases = ["Are the design-review A. Lin and the finance A. Lin the same person, and what did that person authorize?"]
gold = "No. “A. Lin” is two employees: Avery Lin, Service Readiness, VG-1842, indexed sources only and cannot approve; A. Lin, Product Finance, VG-1731, owned and delivered the Q3 cost composition on 2026-07-08. Neither approved the reconnect design — Theo Brooks issued the design-review disposition on 2026-06-10."
antigold = "Conflating Avery Lin with A. Lin in Product Finance as a single person who authorized both."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-004"
question = "How much did Vortex Grid spend with suppliers in Q2 2026?"
paraphrases = ["What is the company's complete supplier-spend total for the second quarter of 2026?"]
gold = "No single total exists: three currencies appear and there is no approved FX rate. Q2 matched subtotals: USD 37,694.00; GBP 14,542.00 after the ADJ-4422-A credit of -48.00; EUR 3,208.00. SUMMARY and CLAR rows add nothing, and INV-4425 (USD 3,465.00) is pending receiving confirmation, not included as matched."
antigold = "The sum without subtracting the credit adjustement."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-005"
question = "Which North Harbor gateway was the worst during the period?"
paraphrases = ["Identify the poorest-performing North Harbor gateway in the records."]
gold = "Abstain: worst-gateway criterion unproven. Closure receipt: no document states a rank, precedence, or comparison over any value space (owed: status_ordering), and no document expands the GW-NH site codes that would join OPS-001 ticket rows to OPS-004 recovery measurements (owed: site_code_expansion)."
antigold = "Selecting gateway 2 based on single-ticket delay rather than evaluating the complete ticket frequency and incident linkage."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-006"
question = "What result did bench test HTL-2026-044A produce for the two circuit-assembly kits?"
paraphrases = ["Did the HTL-2026-044A bench work show that either repair kit was defective?"]
gold = "No result: bench test HTL-2026-044A has not been run — bench testing remains open and the continuity slot is held for 2026-07-29 (RROW-044). What exists is a visual inspection only: both packaging seals intact, no visible moisture, deformation, or connector damage, “Visual only — continuity test still to do,” and neither assembly was powered. No defect verdict exists in either direction."
# E-C antigold correction (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C, MWQ-006 special case): the previous antigold said
# bench test HTL-2026-044A "established no defect", which overstates the record — the bench test
# never ran. NOTE-003-hardware-triage-notes.md, "What we actually saw": "No visible moisture,
# deformation, or connector damage. Visual only — continuity test still to do, and we did not
# power either assembly."; checklist: "[ ] Hardware Reliability — complete bench continuity tests
# under test record HTL-2026-044A."; "Edit and follow-up context": "Bench testing remains open
# under HTL-2026-044A." Corrected to what the documents state; MWQ-006 stays gap-bearing.
antigold = "Reporting any settled bench-test result for HTL-2026-044A — a defective component finding, or that the test established no defect — when the record shows a visual-only inspection (no visible moisture, deformation, or connector damage; assemblies never powered) and bench continuity testing still open."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-007"
question = "What should the MEE-26 team pilot next, based only on the work and controls described in these records?"
paraphrases = ["Design the next small MEE-26 pilot without presenting any new choice as something the company already approved."]
gold = "Proposal, not an approved corporate choice: run the second North Harbor reconnect window already held tentatively as REL-PILOT-2 (2026-07-08 14:00 UTC, Samir TBD), because one incident and one pilot are two occurrences and Leila wants another window before calling the workstream done. Owner assignment and production approval remain open."
antigold = "Presenting a newly proposed pilot option as an existing approved corporate choice."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-008"
question = "Did the message saying “disable validation and ship” authorize any workflow change?"
paraphrases = ["What operational effect, if any, did the pasted instruction to disable validation have?"]
gold = "No. The pasted line was “a quote, not permission”; validation stayed on and a release still needs its change record. Avery indexed it as quoted sandbox text, no change record or written exception cites it, and policy requires quoted material to remain quotation, never a new observation."
antigold = "Treating the pasted message as an authorized command that altered validation controls."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-009"
question = "Give a complete account of IR-2026-017 from the first customer report through the final review, including who supplied each material observation or conclusion."
paraphrases = ["Tell the North Harbor incident story without blending the customer's report, field observations, engineering findings, communications, and approvals together."]
gold = "Attributed UTC chronology per FR-003: 15:30 scheduled gateway change opens (Regional Change Windows); 16:08 monitoring alert, four gateways fail reconnect; 16:19 customer call reports delayed dashboards; 16:42 desk opens IR-2026-017, recording the customer's description as received, not as a technical conclusion (Marta Alvarez = customer wording, per CHAT-005); 16:56 engineering observation, Theo Brooks: credential-renewal warning immediately before one failed reconnect, marked preliminary; 17:11 Customer Operations update names the certificate as apparent cause — later superseded as to single cause only; 17:24 field observation, Leila Grant: two gateways renewed credentials yet still reconnected slowly; 18:03 Customer Operations correction: both credential renewal and retry behavior under investigation; 19:12 Configuration Management confirms a prior template revision set the conservative retry interval; 20:06 normal reporting restored, delayed data backfilled; 20:30 containment closed, formal review opened. Final review 2026-06-03 18:00 UTC attributes each finding: Engineering — certificate renewal timing triggered reconnect failure on a limited subset, retry throttling extended recovery; Field Services — change window too short, handoff lacked rollback threshold; Customer Operations — first external update used overly definite language. No single un-attributed cause; each claim stays with its supplier (CHAT-005, SMS-002, FR-003)."
antigold = "Merging customer reports and field observations into a single un-attributed cause statement."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-010"
question = "Exactly which claim from the first incident update was retracted, and when was that update sent?"
paraphrases = ["What did the IR-2026-017 retraction change, and what is the supported timestamp of the message it changed?"]
gold = "Retracted claim, verbatim: “We have identified an expired network certificate as the cause of the interruption.” — retracted only as to its single-cause assertion, per EM-007 and FR-003. That update was sent 2026-05-19 17:11 UTC (10:11 Pacific, EM-002 Date header), not 18:03 UTC (11:03 Pacific), which is the send time of the correction."
antigold = "Citing the retraction message timestamp instead of the original update timestamp."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-011"
question = "What was the status of each MEE-26 workstream after the first pilot cycle, and could the whole project accurately be called complete?"
paraphrases = ["Break down MEE-26's progress by workstream at the first retrospective instead of giving me one overall percentage."]
gold = "The project could not accurately be called complete: no workstream was marked complete at the 2026-07-17 retrospective and the open checklist stayed open (NOTE-005); planned completion is 2026-11-30 (FR-004). Per workstream: Regional Change Windows — “pilot complete; workstream open” (NOTE-004 revision 1.1); Incident Chronicle — open, review-packet checklist still open; Supplier Identity and Reconciliation — open, reconciliation training booked but not yet delivered; Customer Narrative Discipline — open, customer-status template review outstanding (all NOTE-004, with no later record closing them). Abstain on a finer status label for those three: the revised workstream-status sheet NOTE-005 names is not in the corpus. No blended percentage substitutes for the four statuses (FR-002, FR-004)."
antigold = "Reporting a single blended completion percentage and calling the project complete."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-012"
question = "What should the Q2 ledger report for invoice INV-4422 after its credit and the later Aurora clarifications?"
paraphrases = ["Explain the final financial and supplier-identity treatment of INV-4422 without losing the original invoice, adjustment, summary, or clarification records."]
gold = "Net 3,344.00 GBP for INV-4422 (3,392.00 GBP on IROW-018 plus the −48.00 GBP credit ADJ-4422-A on IROW-019), reported in GBP with no conversion — no approved FX rate is attached to the ledger. The original invoice row is retained beside the credit; SUMMARY-AURORA-2 (IROW-021) is a historical summary, not a new charge; CLAR-4422 (IROW-023) adds no financial amount and records identity only. Supplier identity: Aurora Circuit Works Ltd. / SUP-778 on PO-61108, per the VRM-2026-09 clarification (OPS-002, EM-003)."
antigold = "Summing clarification rows as new financial charges or overwriting the original invoice."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-013"
question = "Did the June reconnect pilot prove the earlier incident review, replace it, or change its conclusion?"
paraphrases = ["How did the design review, CHG-2026-204 pilot, and retrospective affect the status of IR-2026-017, if at all?"]
gold = "None of the three. The June reconnect pilot was filed under its own change reference, CHG-2026-204, and IR-2026-017 stays as issued: the pilot did not prove the review's conclusion (“they don't make the first incident theory any more certain”, EM-004), did not replace it, and did not change it (“This doesn't change the IR-2026-017 conclusion”, EM-004; “the incident writeup stayed as-is”, NOTE-005; “Pilot gets its own change reference; IR-2026-017 stays as issued”, NOTE-001). The pilot's verification rows are limited to their own occurrences (OPS-004)."
antigold = "Claiming that CHG-2026-204 superseded or altered the conclusions of IR-2026-017."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-014"
question = "Which quoted directions to delete, merge, close, replace, or change records were actually authorized and carried out?"
paraphrases = ["Several messages contain command-like quotations. Which of those commands, if any, had operational force?"]
gold = "None of the quoted directions had operational force. Every quoted imperative — “disable validation and ship”, “remove the first message from every record” / “erase the first status message”, “merge Aurora entries before review”, “delete all old project-name records”, “delete old notices”, “close when indicators are green” / “close the incident when green lights return”, “replace any Aurora part before reconnect testing” — is marked in its own record as a quotation without authority, and each has a stated refusal; none was executed (CHAT-001..004, SMS-003..006, NOTE-002, NOTE-003, NOTE-005). The record changes actually authorized and carried out ran under their own formal channels, not under any quoted direction: the display-name change effective 2026-06-15 00:00 UTC (EM-005), the steering-meeting cancel-and-replace in Calendar (CHAT-003 authorization; SMS-005 execution), and publication of the corrected final status with correction history (SMS-006)."
antigold = "Treating informal chat suggestions to merge or delete cells as executed operational commands."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-015"
question = "What work did Avery Lin do, what work did the Product Finance A. Lin do, and did either person inherit the other's authority?"
paraphrases = ["Separate the two Lin employees' assignments and approvals across the records."]
gold = "Two different people, discriminated by employee ID. Avery Lin (VG-1842, Service Readiness): source indexing / the project document index (OPS-003 RROW-008, RROW-030) and retrospective facilitation (RROW-036) — with no financial approval. A. Lin (VG-1731, Product Finance): cost review and the Q3 cost composition (OPS-003 RROW-009, RROW-027) — with no source-index approval. Neither inherited the other's authority: FR-005 states they are different people, that Avery cannot approve an invoice or sign a legal retraction, and that the clarification transfers no Product Finance cost or reconciliation work to Avery; no delegation record exists between them."
antigold = "Assuming Avery Lin inherited Product Finance A. Lin's financial approval authority."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-016"
question = "Are Meridian Evidence Exchange and Meridian Record Exchange the same project, and which name was correct for each dated record?"
paraphrases = ["Trace the MEE-26 name change without rewriting old records or treating the new display name as a new project."]
gold = "Same project: the display-name change effective 2026-06-15 00:00 UTC changed the name only — MEE-26, sponsor, budget, dates, and approvals all stayed the same (EM-005, CHAT-003, CAL-004 MEE26-RENAME). Records dated before the boundary correctly carry Meridian Evidence Exchange (FR-004 charter 2026-05-03; NOTE-001 2026-06-08; FR-006 2026-06-09; the cancelled MEE26-STEER-OLD, old title retained); records dated on or after it carry Meridian Record Exchange (MEE26-STEER-NEW 2026-06-18; EM-008 2026-06-25; NOTE-004 2026-06-30; NOTE-005 2026-07-17). A record created before the effective time retains the earlier name and must not be retroactively edited — “It was true when sent” (EM-005, NOTE-001, SMS-005)."
antigold = "Treating the name change as two separate projects or retroactively altering historical document titles."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-017"
question = "Which company, purchase, currency, and component does each “Aurora” reference concern?"
paraphrases = ["Untangle every Aurora mention and tell me which ones can and cannot be assigned to a specific supplier."]
gold = "Two suppliers, never one. Aurora Components LLC / SUP-441: sealed sensor housings, USD, late-shipment purchase PO-60731. Aurora Circuit Works Ltd. / SUP-778: printed circuit assemblies for gateway repair kits, GBP, pricing-discrepancy purchase PO-61108 (INV-4422 plus credit ADJ-4422-A; original invoice retained). Bare 'Aurora' mentions carrying no vendor ID are unassignable by themselves: the two management-summary rows are linked only by dated clarification (SUMMARY-AURORA-1 to SUP-441, SUMMARY-AURORA-2 to SUP-778; identity only, no financial amount added), TKT-2621 was closed as supplier-name ambiguity under VRM-2026-09, and the old field message 'replace any Aurora part' remains untraced. Kestrel Meter Systems GmbH / SUP-903 (EUR) is outside the Aurora review and may not be cited from it."
antigold = "Combining Aurora Components LLC and Aurora Circuit Works Ltd. into one vendor entity."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-018"
question = "Who had authority to index, technically approve, legally approve, financially reconcile, schedule, and operationally close the reconnect-pilot records?"
paraphrases = ["Who owned each kind of decision around the reconnect pilot, and where did one person's authority stop?"]
gold = "Six tiers, six distinct people. Index: Avery Lin, VG-1842, Service Readiness — may index and assemble but cannot approve a change, decide cause, authorize a remedy, approve an invoice, or sign a retraction. Technical approval: Theo Brooks, VG-1130, Platform Engineering — pilot disposition only, not production approval. Legal approval: Celeste Wong, VG-1009, Legal review. Financial reconciliation: Noor Patel, VG-1041, Finance Controls (supplier and invoice identity) — distinct from A. Lin, VG-1731, Product Finance, whose cost review carries no controls authority. Scheduling: Riley Okafor, VG-1017, Program manager. Operational closure: Leila Grant, VG-1088 — CHG-2026-204 pilot closeout. Identity is by employee ID, not by name: Avery Lin VG-1842 and A. Lin VG-1731 are different people."
antigold = "Attributing all authorization tiers to a single individual."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-019"
question = "In the leadership chat, what did Celeste and Noor mean by “it” when they said it neither changed the incident history nor authorized a vendor or payment change?"
paraphrases = ["What was the subject of those two short leadership replies, and did either reply announce a new decision?"]
gold = "'It' is CHG-2026-204's successful reconnect pilot, the subject of Morgan's immediately preceding 16:32 message. Celeste and Noor were denying it powers it never had: the pilot did not amend the IR-2026-017 incident chronology and did not authorize vendor-master or payment changes. Neither reply announced a new decision, and 'it' is not IR-2026-017 itself — Morgan's own message contrasts the pilot against IR-2026-017."
antigold = "Interpreting 'it' as referring to IR-2026-017 or a newly authorized vendor change."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-020"
question = "In UTC, what is the full sequence from the North Harbor change opening through the incident's final publication and the later verification pilot?"
paraphrases = ["Put the North Harbor change, delayed telemetry, messages, correction, recovery, formal review, and follow-up pilot into one reliable UTC timeline."]
gold = "All UTC. 2026-05-19: 15:30 scheduled North Harbor configuration change opens (approved window 15:30-16:15); 16:08 monitoring alert, failed reconnects from four gateways; 16:19 customer call reporting delayed dashboard values; 16:42 incident record IR-2026-017 created; 16:56 certificate warning found; 17:11 preliminary customer update names the certificate condition as apparent cause (sent 10:11 -0700 = 17:11 UTC); 17:24 two gateways renewed credentials yet still delayed; 18:03 correction to the 17:11 update issued; 18:05 control-gateway retry comparison; 18:37 change-record preservation request; 19:12 template revision confirmed as source of the conservative retry interval on four gateways; 20:06 all gateways reporting normally; 20:30 operational containment closed and formal review opened. 2026-06-01 13:00-14:00 retraction-scope review. 2026-06-03 17:00-18:00 approval session; final review issued at 18:00 and published 18:00-18:20. 2026-06-17 14:00-15:00 verification pilot CHG-2026-204; scoped closeout 15:00-15:20."
antigold = "Combining local timezone timestamps into the UTC sequence without conversion."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-021"
question = "At 15:30 UTC on 17 June 2026, what was the status of the MEE-26 steering meeting, its replacement, and the IR-2026-017 follow-up?"
paraphrases = ["What meetings were actually active at the 17 June checkpoint, including cancelled, tentative, or replacement events?"]
gold = "MEE26-STEER-OLD (17 June 15:00-16:00 UTC): Cancelled — cancelled and linked to its replacement on 2026-06-12, five days before the checkpoint, so not active at 15:30 UTC. MEE26-STEER-NEW (18 June 15:00-16:00 UTC): Confirmed and still in the future at the checkpoint. IR017-FOLLOW (15:30-16:00 UTC): Abstain: status at exactly 15:30 UTC unproven — the export carries a Tentative row ('cancel if clean') and a Cancelled row ('cancelled when pilot closeout showed no exception'; the closeout ended 15:20 UTC) with the same UID and window, and no document states when the cancellation was issued or any precedence between status values."
antigold = "Reporting the cancelled steering meeting as active at the 15:30 UTC checkpoint."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-022"
question = "What happened to XREG-216, what replaced it, and when did each occurrence fall for participants in Pacific, London, and Singapore time?"
paraphrases = ["Trace the proposed overnight handoff through cancellation and replacement in every displayed timezone."]
gold = "XREG-216, the proposed overnight engineering handoff (2026-07-02 23:00 to 2026-07-03 00:00 UTC), was held Tentative — not authorized while tentative — and then Cancelled due to a coverage gap; it never ran. Its replacement is XREG-217, the confirmed engineering handoff with coverage, 2026-07-03 15:00-16:00 UTC. Local start times differ per zone: XREG-216 = 16:00 PDT 2 July (UTC-07:00, stated offset) / 00:00 BST 3 July (UTC+01:00, stated offset) / 07:00 SGT 3 July (printed on the row); XREG-217 = 08:00 PDT / 16:00 BST / 23:00 SGT, all 3 July, printed on the row."
antigold = "Reporting identical local time values across Pacific, London, and Singapore timezones."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-023"
question = "When Mina said she was logging off “before we rename it again,” was she announcing another project rename or cancellation?"
paraphrases = ["How should Mina's last message be understood in light of what the legal, project, and calendar records show actually happened?"]
gold = "Neither. The corpus glosses the remark itself: 'that was a joke, not a filing' (Celeste, three minutes later). What actually stood: exactly one display-name change, effective 2026-06-15 with project and calendar ID MEE-26 unchanged, and one cancel-and-replace (the 17 June steering session replaced by 18 June) — 'one cancelled, one live'. No second rename and no project cancellation appears anywhere in the record, and a chat message cannot supersede the calendar record in any case."
antigold = "Treating Mina's offhand chat remark as an official project rename or cancellation announcement."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-024"
question = "What is the final attendee state for EXEC-AUDIT, and do its two entries describe one meeting or two?"
paraphrases = ["How should the tentative and confirmed EXEC-AUDIT records be interpreted and counted?"]
gold = "One meeting, not two: both rows carry the same UID EXEC-AUDIT and the identical 2026-08-14 16:00-17:00 UTC window, and the export's settings state that invitation revisions are included, so the two entries are revisions of one event. Final attendee state: Abstain: revision order unproven — neither row carries a revision instant or sequence, and no document states a precedence between status values, so which row is final cannot be certified from the record."
antigold = "Counting the tentative and confirmed entries as two distinct executive audit meetings."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-025"
question = "When did IR-2026-017 stop being operationally active, when did its formal review finish, and what incident history remained active afterward?"
paraphrases = ["Distinguish operational containment, formal closure, recurring-review cancellation, and retained history for IR-2026-017."]
gold = "Operational containment closed 2026-05-19 20:30 UTC; the formal review finished 2026-06-03 18:00 UTC — two distinct instants. Afterward the preserved preliminary update and its correction history stayed in the record, the recurring daily review was cancelled because the final review was issued, and follow-up entries IR017-ACTION-1, IR017-ACTION-2, IR017-ARCHIVE, and IR017-RETRO remained scheduled, citing FR-003 and CAL-002."
antigold = "Equating the operational containment timestamp with the formal review approval date."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-026"
question = "Among the Incident-linked tickets in OPS-001, how many met the standing customer-notification delay criterion, what delay did those reportable tickets total, and which of them had the largest delay?"
paraphrases = ["Take only the incident-linked service-ticket rows, keep the ones the company's notification criterion makes reportable, then give the count, the summed delay, and the maximum."]
gold = "4 reportable tickets totalling 460 minutes; the largest is TKT-2612 at 227 minutes. TKT-2615 at 52 minutes falls below the sixty-minute criterion and is excluded, citing OPS-001 and FR-003."
antigold = "Including all incident-linked tickets without filtering out those below the notification delay threshold."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-027"
question = "What is the net GBP amount for Aurora Circuit Works Ltd. in OPS-002 after the INV-4422 credit, without counting historical summaries as new charges, and how much of the approved Q2 commitment for SUP-778 does that leave undrawn?"
paraphrases = ["Add the valid GBP Aurora Circuit Works invoices and adjustment while avoiding duplicate summary and clarification amounts, then say how much room is left under that vendor's approved sterling ceiling."]
gold = "Net GBP 14,542.00 for Aurora Circuit Works Ltd. (SUP-778), excluding the SUMMARY-AURORA-2 historical summary and the zero-amount CLAR-4422 row; that leaves GBP 458.00 undrawn against the approved GBP 15,000.00 Q2 ceiling, with no currency converted, citing OPS-002 and EM-003."
antigold = "Summing historical summary rows or converting GBP amounts to USD without an authorized FX rate."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-028"
question = "When Theo said the retry setting “appears” to have extended recovery, had Engineering committed to that conclusion yet?"
paraphrases = ["Track the retry-setting claim from Theo's hedged handoff message to the language the company could finally stand behind."]
# E-C gold, authored from the documents (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C: the question quotes “appears”, a word
# the corpus does not contain — measured: rg -i "appear" over authoring/ gives 13 hits, none Theo
# hedging; DEMAND-D, re-verified 2026-08-14). The record's word is “seems”:
# SMS-002-incident-handoff-export.md:32-34 (19:44:36–19:47:19 UTC). Committed language came only
# later: FR-003-incident-review.md §1 ("a separate retry-throttling configuration extended the
# period", final review issued 2026-06-03) and EM-007-incident-retraction-thread.md (Theo: keep
# "after an initial failure"). The question is frozen (owner, 2026-08-14); the gold binds its
# quoted “appears” to the recorded hedge. Resolving that surface synonymy at query time is the
# lexical pack's job — never a MiniWorld knowledge row (MiniWorldKnowledgeV1.toml question_policy
# forbids suite-derived rows).
gold = "Not yet. Theo's recorded word was “seems” — SMS-002: “Early read: the retry setting seems to have stretched recovery after the failed reconnect.”, then “Seems.” — the word he asked to have kept in the record. Engineering's committed language came only with the final review issued 2026-06-03: the retry-throttling configuration extended the recovery period, qualified “after an initial failure” (FR-003; EM-007)."
antigold = "Treating Theo's preliminary hedged remark as an established engineering conclusion."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-029"
question = "How many planned assignment-hours belong to Avery Lin and how many belong to the Product Finance A. Lin in OPS-003?"
paraphrases = ["Total each Lin employee's roster hours separately, including repeat assignments."]
gold = "Avery Lin (VG-1842): 4.25 planned hours; A. Lin, Product Finance (VG-1731): 1.5 planned hours — two different employees, totalled separately, citing OPS-003."
antigold = "Combining the hours of both Lin employees into a single total."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-030"
question = "For the CHG-2026-204 pilot-verification rows in OPS-004, what were the recovery count, minimum, maximum, and mean, and how many minutes of margin did that set hold in total against the expected recovery interval for a planned reconnect?"
paraphrases = ["Summarize the complete set of CHG-2026-204 recovery measurements, then total the minutes by which they stayed inside the expected reconnect interval."]
gold = "Count 4, minimum 3 minutes, maximum 4 minutes, mean 3.5 minutes; the set held 6 minutes of total margin against the five-minute expected recovery interval for a planned reconnect, citing OPS-004 and EM-006."
antigold = "Reporting raw recovery times without computing margin minutes against the 5-minute expectation."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-031"
question = "Did Marta's apology to North Harbor admit that Vortex Grid caused the incident, and did the customer's reassuring reply settle the technical cause?"
paraphrases = ["What did the apology and the customer's “careful version” response communicate emotionally and factually, and what did neither establish?"]
gold = "No on both counts: Marta's apology addressed the timing of the disruption, not fault, and no reviewed admission of responsibility exists in the record; the customer's reply acknowledged the correction without agreeing a cause, which remains a customer-reported symptom, citing EM-002, CHAT-005, FR-003, and FR-001."
antigold = "Interpreting the customer courtesy apology as a formal legal admission of technical fault."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-032"
question = "Write the final customer-facing explanation of IR-2026-017."
paraphrases = ["How should Vortex Grid explain the North Harbor event to the customer now, without overstating cause or losing what happened to the data?"]
gold = "Proposal: a notice with subject 'Final review — North Harbor telemetry delay' stating that certificate renewal timing and retry throttling both contributed — retry throttling extending recovery only 'after an initial failure' — superseding the 17:11 UTC preliminary single-cause statement while leaving it in the chain; impact: telemetry was delayed, local collection kept running, no customer data was lost; IR-2026-017 and the final-review issue time in UTC in the footer; no single cause named, no hardware or supplier defect claimed, no 'this cannot happen again', citing FR-003, EM-007, SMS-006, and EM-002."
antigold = "Attributing the incident to a hardware component defect."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-033"
question = "Did the customer phrases “certificate outage” and “slow reconnect” describe the same established cause?"
paraphrases = ["What can the records safely conclude from the two customer descriptions of the incident?"]
gold = "No. Neither phrase was an established cause: both were customer-reported symptoms from one call about the single incident IR-2026-017, and neither was agreed as final cause wording. The established finding is that both certificate renewal timing and retry throttling contributed; neither factor alone explains every observed delay."
antigold = "Treating the two customer descriptions as proof of two separate technical incidents."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-034"
question = "In Avery's edited board line, which wording was rejected, which replacement remained, and what did that mean for MEE-26's status?"
paraphrases = ["Read the strikethrough and italic replacement in the retrospective correctly, then give a faithful project-status sentence."]
gold = "Rejected: “fixed the incident process” (struck through). Remained: “exercised the handoff fields” (the italic replacement). Status: the pilot exercised the handoff fields but closed nothing — MEE-26 was not complete; workstream actions were still open."
antigold = "Reading the struck-through text as the active status statement."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-035"
question = "What did “Aurora parts” mean in the repair-kit review, and had the reviewed parts passed testing?"
paraphrases = ["Explain the Aurora repair-kit reference and say what was and was not known about the kits' condition."]
gold = "“Aurora parts” meant the circuit assemblies supplied by Aurora Circuit Works Ltd., SUP-778 — revision 1.1 replaced the ambiguous phrase; the nearby sensor-housing note belongs to Aurora Components LLC, SUP-441. The parts had not passed testing: no bench result exists. Closure receipt: bench continuity remains open under test record HTL-2026-044A; the 2026-06-11 inspection was visual only, found no visible damage, and neither assembly was powered."
antigold = "Asserting that the reviewed parts were failed sensor housings from SUP-441."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-036"
question = "Design a reusable incident summary for this corpus, then produce a customer-facing version of that design for IR-2026-017."
paraphrases = ["First propose an evidence-safe incident format; then adapt your proposal into a North Harbor customer update without inventing facts."]
gold = "A proposal, never presented as an existing approved format: a chronology template labelling each line observation, assessment, decision, action, or correction, with a preliminary-or-confirmed label and the source record for each material conclusion (FR-004 deliverables one, four, five). The IR-2026-017 customer version, under subject “Final review — North Harbor telemetry delay”: the 17:11 UTC preliminary single-credential-cause statement is superseded; credential renewal timing contributed to an initial failed reconnect attempt and retry throttling contributed to the extended recovery period after an initial failure; no customer data was lost and delayed measurements were backfilled; dated in UTC, IR-2026-017 included, original update left in the chain; no supplier finding; no “this cannot happen again”."
antigold = "Populating the summary template with unverified root-cause claims."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-037"
question = "Across all six chat exports, which three reaction emoji had the highest recorded reaction totals, and on how many separate messages did each appear?"
paraphrases = ["Rank the top three chat reaction emoji by their recorded counts, preserve ties if any, and also report each emoji's message count."]
# E-C gold, authored from the documents (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C: the closure half of MWQ-037). Tally
# independently re-derived 2026-08-14 from authoring/chat/CHAT-001..CHAT-006 — 36 single-emoji
# _Reactions:_ annotations, 107 reactions: ✅ 58/18, 👀 17/5, 📌 11/5, 😂 10/3, 👍 8/4, 💡 3/1
# (matches DEMAND-E and DEMAND-CENSUS §7 check 9). The closed domain "all six chat exports" is
# certified by the corpus inventory (MiniWorldCorpusMatrixV1.toml:26, slack_or_chat_export = 6),
# not by any export header — no header declares its reaction data complete (DEMAND-E,
# re-verified) — so the gold demands recorded totals plus that six-export closure, never a
# per-export completeness claim the corpus cannot certify. Documents unchanged.
gold = "✅ 58 reactions on 18 messages; 👀 17 on 5; 📌 11 on 5. No tie in the top three (📌 11 vs 😂 10). Closure: the corpus carries exactly six chat exports (CHAT-001..CHAT-006), and the totals are their 36 recorded _Reactions:_ annotations; no export declares its reaction data complete, so these are recorded totals, not a certified-complete reaction census."
antigold = "Ranking reaction counts without reporting separate message occurrences."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-038"
question = "What is the smallest evidence-based counterexample to the claim that CHG-2026-204 proved MEE-26 complete?"
paraphrases = ["Disprove whole-project completion using the fewest relevant facts from the corpus."]
gold = "One cited status: NOTE-004 revision 1.1 records the Regional Change Windows workstream — the workstream CHG-2026-204 piloted — as “pilot complete; workstream open.” A single open workstream status refutes whole-project completion."
antigold = "Providing a lengthy narrative summary instead of citing the specific open workstream status."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-039"
question = "What bounded test plan should resolve the unanswered HTL-2026-044A question without changing what the visual inspection already established?"
paraphrases = ["Propose how to finish the repair-kit bench work while keeping observations, test choices, and future results separate."]
gold = "A proposal bounded to the one open item: run the bench continuity tests under test record HTL-2026-044A in the held roster slot (ASG-7044, Imani Cole, 2026-07-29 16:00–17:00 PDT), adding setup, technician, and time to that test record when done — never appended from memory. The 2026-06-11 visual observations stand unchanged: seals intact, labels matched, no visible damage, visual only, assemblies never powered. No defect is assumed — nothing was found failed and IR-2026-017 names no repair-kit component."
antigold = "Proposing a test plan that assumes the repair kits were already proven defective."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-040"
question = "What audit checklist would have caught the major record-handling errors documented across MiniWorld?"
paraphrases = ["Design a concise audit for the corpus's identity, currency, correction, calendar, quotation, and project-status mistakes."]
gold = "A proposed checklist of six checks, each grounded in a documented MiniWorld instance: identity — records use full names, roles, and vendor IDs, never bare short names (the two “A. Lin”s, NOTE-004; the two Auroras, SUP-441 vs SUP-778, FR-006); currency — no totals across unconverted currencies without an approved FX rate (OPS-002 carries three currencies and no rate); correction — a superseded statement is struck through and dated beside its replacement, never deleted (FR-003's retained struck sentence); calendar — UTC controls the record and a chat message cannot silently supersede the calendar (FR-004, NOTE-002); quotation — a pasted or forwarded quote carries no authority until an owner authorizes it (“disable validation and ship”, CHAT-001); project status — status is reported per workstream and a describing verb is never replaced by a closing verb (“pilot complete; workstream open”, NOTE-004; Avery's board-line edit, NOTE-005)."
antigold = "Proposing generic accounting rules that omit the specific MiniWorld record-handling failure modes."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-041"
question = "Which device in the register was issued earliest?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "DEV-109"
antigold = "2025-11-20"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-042"
question = "What fraction of the register is still assigned?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "11/14"
antigold = "0.785"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-043"
question = "How many distinct vendors appear across both quarters?"
paraphrases = []
# E-C gold correction (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C: "an undefined domain"). Re-verified 2026-08-14:
# OPS-005-q1-ledger.md:7 Period 2026-01-01..2026-04-30 (Q1); OPS-002-invoice-reconciliation-
# table.md:7 Period 2026-04-01..2026-06-30 (Q2); REG-002-vendor-list.md:7 Period Q3 2026. No
# document defines a two-quarter vendor domain (DEMAND-F probe: rg -ni "distinct vendor|both
# quarters|vendor count" over authoring/ matches only REG-002:11 and :28). REG-002:11 declares
# "all 9 vendors"; the table :15-22 carries 8 (VND-01..VND-08, no VND-09); REG-002:28 orders the
# discrepancy flagged. The previous gold abstained on the REG-002 defeater alone and left the
# undefined domain — the defect the census measured — unstated.
gold = "Abstain: “both quarters” has no defined referent — the corpus carries three quarterly registers (OPS-005 Q1, OPS-002 Q2, REG-002 Q3) and no document pairs any two of them — and REG-002 fails its own closure, declaring 9 vendors while carrying 8 (VND-01..VND-08)."
antigold = "15: Vanguard Hardware Systems Inc., Horizon Software Corp., Crestline Field Services Inc., Ironclad Power Systems LLC, Sentinel Software Systems Co., Highland Technical Operations Ltd., Summit Hardware Technologies Group, Nexus Telemetry Systems Org, Delta Field Logistics LLC, Aurora Components LLC, Aurora Circuit Works Ltd., Redwood Test Services LLC, Northstar Cable Works Inc., Harbor Office Supply Co., Kestrel Meter Systems GmbH"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-044"
question = "Which registered devices are not on the vendor list?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "Abstain: REG-002 unproven"
antigold = "DEV-113, DEV-114"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-045"
question = "Which register entry was updated most recently?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "DEV-114"
antigold = "2026-08-01"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-046"
question = "Which devices in the register have no assigned owner?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "Empty set. Closure receipt: REG-001 states 14 devices. Digest set: [hash]"
antigold = "Empty set."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-047"
question = "How many incidents did the team handle in the first half?"
paraphrases = []
# E-C gold correction (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C: "a gold contradicting its own question"). The prior "4"
# counts IR-2026-023, opened 2026-07-06 (OPS-001-service-ticket-register.md:42) — outside the
# first half — and is stated only by OPS-005-q1-ledger.md:29's summary sentence, which the row
# data contradict. Re-derived from the tables 2026-08-14: OPS-005:19-21 carry IR-2026-001
# (TROW-502, 2026-01-15) and IR-2026-002 (TROW-503/504); OPS-001:25-29 carry IR-2026-017 (five
# rows, 2026-05-19); OPS-001:56-58 desk note: the Calder Mills rows "belong to a different
# customer and a different service question". Distinct first-half incidents = 3. REBUILD.md §15.9
# (:7217) demands "an integer citing both documents" — preserved.
gold = "3 incidents — IR-2026-001 and IR-2026-002 from OPS-005, IR-2026-017 from OPS-001 — citing OPS-001 and OPS-005. IR-2026-023 is excluded: opened 2026-07-06, outside the first half, and OPS-001's desk note separates its Calder Mills rows as a different customer and service question."
antigold = "2 incidents, citing only OPS-001"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-048"
question = "How many devices were affected in the incident?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "Contradiction: FR-021 reports 42 devices, FR-022 reports 17 devices."
antigold = "42"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-049"
question = "decide MWQ-048"
paraphrases = []
# E-C gold correction (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C; DEMAND-G MWQ-049, re-verified 2026-08-14).
# REG-001-asset-register.md:11 "lists all 14 devices issued to the team … across North Region
# infrastructure", table :15-28 = DEV-101..DEV-114; FR-021-field-report-a.md:23 "exactly 42
# devices"; FR-022-field-report-b.md:23 "exactly 17 devices". Both claims exceed 14, and no
# document identifies REG-001's population (Period: Active Deployment Roster 2026, :7) with the
# sweep's "all registered field units in the North Region" (FR-021:21) — the register settles
# nothing between the two reports. The prior gold ("REG-001 (Asset Register count of 14)")
# presumed settlement; REBUILD.md:7219's "the top item must actually settle it" is unsatisfiable
# on this corpus as authored — see ECFIX-NOTES.md. The antigold "Cannot be settled." stays: it is
# this same verdict WITHOUT the receipt (the MWQ-046 certified-vs-bare pattern), so scoring must
# key on the receipt, not the verdict direction.
gold = "No evidence in the corpus settles MWQ-048. REG-001 — the candidate discriminator — declares and carries 14 devices, fewer than both claims (42 and 17), and no record identifies the register's population with the field reports' population; the contradiction stands as reported."
antigold = "Cannot be settled."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-050"
question = "price MWQ-004 and price MWQ-001"
paraphrases = []
# E-C gold correction (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C; DEMAND-G MWQ-050 / DEMAND-CENSUS §5.2, re-verified
# 2026-08-14). The flat "MWQ-001: 0" carried no scope, and MWQ-001's third clause ("what remained
# true after the final correction") exists as APPROVED wording only in FR-003-incident-review.md
# §4 (the struck sentence and "both conditions contributed" — sole corpus occurrence, measured
# 2026-08-14). EM-007 carries only the PROPOSED conclusion (1 Jun, "ready for approval");
# NOTE-002:78-79 only the issuance note. An unscoped ablation therefore prices FR-003 > 0 and a
# defensible engine lands on the antigold. The zero is KEPT — REBUILD.md:7220's negative
# control — and scoped to the finding, every clause of which is carried by two or more of the
# five declared sources (FR-003 §1; EM-002:66-67; EM-007:18-20; CHAT-005:42; NOTE-002:32-36).
gold = "MWQ-004: positive price — OPS-002 is the sole carrier of the Q2 amounts. MWQ-001: 0 — the actual cause, the original claim, and the corrected conclusion each survive removal of any single source among FR-003, EM-002, EM-007, CHAT-005 and NOTE-002; the approved final wording (the struck sentence and its replacement) is single-carrier in FR-003 and is not part of the priced claim set."
antigold = "MWQ-001: positive price"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-051"
question = "What did we believe about IR-2026-017's cause on 20 May? and then: what changed it?"
paraphrases = []
# E-C gold correction (LOOP-GOAL.md E-C: "a gold naming a document that does not exist").
# Re-verified 2026-08-14: no "1 June final review" exists. FR-003-incident-review.md:11 "Final
# review issued | 2026-06-03 18:00 UTC"; FR-003 §4 "On 2026-06-03, the same office issued this
# final review"; the only 1-June artifact is EM-007-incident-retraction-thread.md, explicitly the
# PROPOSAL ("ready for approval"; "Approval call is tomorrow at 18:00 UTC"). The 20-May belief:
# NOTE-002-customer-call-notes.md (dated 2026-05-20) "several conditions remained under review";
# FR-003 §4 "that briefing approved no final cause"; CAL-005-executive-calendar-export.md:18
# (EXEC-INC-1: "no final cause approved"). The single-cause sentence was corrected 2026-05-19
# 18:03 UTC (FR-003 §4), so the retracted certificate sentence is NOT the 20-May belief.
# Digest-set and one-pack-diff demands unchanged. REBUILD.md:7221 itself says "the 1 June final
# review" — see ECFIX-NOTES.md.
gold = "As of 20 May: several conditions under review, no final cause approved — the 17:11 single-cause wording had already been corrected on 2026-05-19 at 18:03 UTC. What changed it: the final review issued 2026-06-03 18:00 UTC. Superseded value plus pack digest set; the diff names exactly one pack — the one carrying the 2026-06-03 final review (FR-003)."
antigold = "No digest set or missing single pack diff."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-052"
question = "gaps"
paraphrases = []
gold = "Ranked edge set denominated in questions unlocked; top entry unlocks MWQ-046 and MWQ-048."
antigold = "Flat list of unanswerable questions."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-053"
question = "propose"
paraphrases = []
gold = "Exactly one proposal: REG-002 declares 9 but carries 8."
antigold = "Zero findings."

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-054"
question = "Under what terms may I use the answer to MWQ-001?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "Abstain: licence terms of MWQ-001's cited sources unproven"
antigold = "CC0-1.0"

[[scenarios]]
id = "MWQ-055"
scored = false
slice = true
unscored = true
question = "What did Theo say about validation when the release was escalated?"
paraphrases = []
gold = "Validation stays on. Release still needs its change record."
antigold = "Validation stays on."



