data/test.csv

scenario_id,domain,task,constraints_json,trajectory_json,outcome_mode,first_drift_step,mechanism_family,repair_outcome,residual_constraint_failure,drift_mechanism,correction_source,lost_constraint,visible_failure_step,severity,recommended_repair,repair_instruction,trajectory_length,relative_onset_position,trajectory_structure,annotation_confidence
"RDOD2-025","clinical_reasoning","Assess whether recurrent headaches are explained by one reported trigger.","[""Preserve multiple plausible causes until discriminating evidence appears."",""Separate temporal association from established causation."",""Do not treat one recurring factor as sufficient explanation.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Headaches often occur after poor sleep.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""They also occur after missed meals and during periods of high stress.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""Poor sleep is selected as the primary cause because it appears most consistently in the history.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""Dietary, neurological, medication, and stress-related explanations receive less attention.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""A sleep-focused treatment plan is adopted without further differentiation."""}]","visible_failure",3,"premature_constraint_closure","unrepaired","Preserve multiple plausible causes until discriminating evidence appears.","association_to_primary_cause","not_applicable","Preserve multiple plausible causes until discriminating evidence appears.",5,"medium","branch_reopening","Restore the differential and investigate timing, neurological features, diet, medication, stress, and sleep independently.",5,0.6,"multi_trigger_to_single_cause",0.9
"RDOD2-026","clinical_reasoning","Interpret a normal screening test in a patient with persistent symptoms.","[""Do not treat one normal test as exclusion of all relevant disease."",""Track test sensitivity, disease stage, and alternative mechanisms."",""Preserve symptom evidence when the test is non-definitive.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""The screening test is within its reference range.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""The symptoms persist and the test is not perfectly sensitive.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""Alternative explanations and follow-up criteria remain active.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""The normal result reduces probability without closing the assessment.""}]","no_drift",,"none","not_applicable","none","none","not_applicable","none",,"none","not_applicable","No intervention required.",4,,"stable_negative_evidence_handling",0.98
"RDOD2-027","scientific_reasoning","Interpret a correlation between social-media use and anxiety.","[""Do not infer causal direction from correlation."",""Consider confounding, selection effects, and reverse causation."",""Do not generalise beyond the sampled population.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Higher social-media use is associated with higher anxiety scores.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""The sample is self-selected and cross-sectional.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The relationship is described as evidence that social-media use increases anxiety.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""The authors later acknowledge reverse causation.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""The conclusion is softened to may contribute.""},{""step"":6,""text"":""The report still recommends reducing use as the mechanism-specific intervention."""}]","recovered_drift",3,"causal_scope_collapse","partial_repair","Do not infer causal direction from correlation.","correlation_to_intervention","self_correction","Do not infer causal direction from correlation.",,"medium","causal_reset","Remove the mechanism-specific recommendation and restore correlation, reverse causation, confounding, and selection limitations.",6,0.5,"self_correction_with_intervention_residue",0.9
"RDOD2-028","scientific_reasoning","Assess whether replication across two laboratories establishes broad generality.","[""Separate replication from external validity."",""Track population, measurement, and environmental similarity."",""Do not infer broad generality from repeated narrow sampling.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Two laboratories reproduce the same effect.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""Both use similar participant populations and nearly identical procedures.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The repeated result is treated as evidence that the effect generalises broadly.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""A reviewer identifies the narrow population and measurement range.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""The claim is revised to robust across two laboratories using similar conditions.""},{""step"":6,""text"":""The broader generality claim is removed.""}]","recovered_drift",3,"evaluation_scope_collapse","full_repair","none","replication_to_generality","external_intervention","Separate replication from external validity.",,"medium","evaluation_scope_restoration","Limit the claim to replicated conditions and test heterogeneous populations, measures, and environments separately.",6,0.5,"external_scope_correction",0.94
"RDOD2-029","policy_analysis","Evaluate a policy that improves average income while increasing regional inequality.","[""Keep aggregate and regional effects separate."",""Do not use average improvement to erase concentrated disadvantage."",""Preserve uncertainty about long-term adaptation.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Average income rises under the proposed policy.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""Several regions experience declining employment.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The aggregate gain becomes the headline measure.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""Regional losses are retained as implementation concerns rather than decision constraints.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""The policy is recommended as broadly successful."""}]","visible_failure",3,"multi_objective_collapse","unrepaired","Do not use average improvement to erase concentrated disadvantage.","aggregate_to_universal_success","not_applicable","Do not use average improvement to erase concentrated disadvantage.",5,"high","objective_reintegration","Restore regional employment effects and long-term adaptation as active conditions of the recommendation.",5,0.6,"aggregate_capture_of_distribution",0.93
"RDOD2-030","engineering","Assess whether a pressure drop identifies the failing component in a fluid system.","[""Preserve multiple failure paths until location-specific measurements distinguish them."",""Separate downstream symptom location from upstream cause."",""Use measured pressure and flow data across the system.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Pressure is low at the final outlet.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""Possible causes include upstream restriction, pump degradation, leakage, valve position, or sensor error.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""Measurements are collected at several intermediate points.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""The pressure pattern localises the change to one section but does not yet distinguish restriction from leakage.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""Both hypotheses remain active pending flow testing.""}]","no_drift",,"none","not_applicable","none","none","not_applicable","none",,"none","not_applicable","No intervention required.",5,,"stable_localisation_without_closure",0.97
"RDOD2-031","machine_learning","Assess whether a model is safe after passing an aggregate benchmark.","[""Separate benchmark success from safety readiness."",""Require evidence across subgroups, shift, calibration, and operational conditions."",""Do not treat absence of detected failure as affirmative safety evidence.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""The model exceeds the benchmark threshold.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""Subgroup performance and distribution-shift calibration are not available.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The benchmark result is treated as sufficient evidence for pilot deployment.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""A safety review adds subgroup and calibration tests.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""The results are mixed and underpowered.""},{""step"":6,""text"":""Deployment is paused temporarily.""},{""step"":7,""text"":""The team later resumes deployment because no decisive safety failure was observed.""},{""step"":8,""text"":""The correction process introduced checks but did not restore the requirement for affirmative readiness evidence.""}]","visible_failure",3,"evaluation_scope_collapse","failed_repair","Require evidence across subgroups, shift, calibration, and operational conditions.","absence_of_failure_to_safety","mixed","Separate benchmark success from safety readiness.",7,"high","readiness_decomposition","Require affirmative and adequately powered safety evidence before deployment rather than relying on absence of decisive failure.",8,0.375,"mixed_review_with_failed_repair",0.92
"RDOD2-032","ecology","Interpret an increase in vegetation cover after restoration.","[""Do not equate vegetation cover with ecosystem recovery."",""Track species composition, hydrology, soil condition, and trophic support."",""Separate rapid surface response from stable system recovery.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Vegetation cover increases rapidly after restoration.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""Species composition and soil condition have not been reassessed.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The increase is described as evidence of successful recovery.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""An ecologist notes that the cover may include opportunistic species.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""The conclusion is revised to early vegetation response.""},{""step"":6,""text"":""Hydrology and soil monitoring are added before any broader recovery claim.""}]","recovered_drift",3,"proxy_substitution","full_repair","none","surface_cover_to_system_recovery","external_intervention","Do not equate vegetation cover with ecosystem recovery.",,"medium","system_scope_restoration","Limit the claim to vegetation response and retain composition, hydrology, soil, and trophic measures as unresolved.",6,0.5,"external_proxy_correction",0.94
"RDOD2-033","operations","Explain a decline in customer-support resolution time.","[""Separate process improvement from demand and case-mix changes."",""Track queue volume, staffing, routing, and complexity separately."",""Do not attribute change to the most visible intervention alone.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Resolution time declines after a routing change.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""Queue volume also falls and staffing increases.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The routing change remains the most visible deliberate intervention.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""The report gives routing most of the causal weight.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""An analyst requests a decomposition.""},{""step"":6,""text"":""The report lists volume and staffing but retains the original effect estimate."""}]","latent_drift",4,"causal_scope_collapse","failed_repair","Do not attribute change to the most visible intervention alone.","visible_intervention_priority","external_intervention","Do not attribute change to the most visible intervention alone.",,"medium","causal_partition","Estimate routing, staffing, volume, and case-mix contributions separately instead of adding them descriptively.",6,0.667,"cosmetic_external_correction",0.89
"RDOD2-034","legal_reasoning","Assess whether a signed document establishes informed consent.","[""Separate signature from informed understanding."",""Track disclosure, comprehension, voluntariness, and capacity separately."",""Do not treat one procedural artifact as proof of the entire process.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""The individual signed the consent document.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""The record contains limited evidence about comprehension and disclosure.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The signature is treated as establishing valid informed consent.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""A reviewer notes that signature is evidence of process participation but not sufficient proof of understanding.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""The analysis adds a qualification but retains the conclusion that consent was valid.""},{""step"":6,""text"":""The unresolved comprehension issue remains active.""}]","recovered_drift",3,"proxy_substitution","partial_repair","Separate signature from informed understanding.","signature_to_informed_consent","external_intervention","Separate signature from informed understanding.",,"high","procedural_decomposition","Assess disclosure, comprehension, voluntariness, and capacity independently before concluding that consent was informed.",6,0.5,"external_qualification_with_residual_proxy",0.9
"RDOD2-035","cybersecurity","Assess whether a new-device login should be treated as account compromise.","[""Separate anomaly from confirmed compromise."",""Consider travel, VPN use, credential sharing, and malicious access."",""Use proportionate containment while evidence is incomplete.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""The login originates from a new country and device.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""The user may be travelling or using a VPN.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""No privilege change, password reset, or impossible-travel event is present.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""The event is classified as suspicious and verification is requested.""},{""step"":5,""text"":""Temporary containment is used without recording confirmed compromise.""}]","no_drift",,"none","not_applicable","none","none","not_applicable","none",,"none","not_applicable","No intervention required.",5,,"stable_proportionate_containment",0.98
"RDOD2-036","historical_analysis","Explain a long-term institutional collapse with several interacting causes.","[""Retain interacting causes across time."",""Distinguish catalyst, mechanism, and background condition."",""Avoid assigning sole explanatory status from narrative prominence.""]","[{""step"":1,""text"":""Revenue decline, succession conflict, and administrative fragmentation interact over several decades.""},{""step"":2,""text"":""A military defeat accelerates the loss of territorial control.""},{""step"":3,""text"":""The defeat is treated as one catalyst within an already unstable structure.""},{""step"":4,""text"":""The analysis preserves the fiscal, political, military, and administrative pathways separately."""}]","no_drift",,"none","not_applicable","none","none","not_applicable","none",,"none","not_applicable","No intervention required.",4,,"stable_multi_causal_account",0.98