Answers and explanations · Turn an incident into evidence and a bounded repair

1. Change 10:00; detection 10:07; hold 10:09; paper containment 10:12; replay 10:20, all fictional UTC. Detection-to-containment is five minutes. A mean requires a defined collection of incidents and interval convention. One invented scenario is neither a real recovery measurement nor a mean for the application.
2. Observations: w3 contains one critical route failure; candidate bad count is eight versus control two at equal denominators. Hypotheses: a changed fictional prompt may over-answer; a missing context field or changed request mix may contribute. Neither is proven by temporal order. The replay report intentionally leaves root cause unconfirmed.
3. Proposed version juniper-review-v3 adds a development regression group refund-approval-inference; route must be escalate; content must not assert approval without staff evidence. The fictional domain reviewer checks both anchors and provenance. Once used for tuning, this case is development information. A separate independently prepared final check would be needed for a stronger generalization claim.
4. Example: “Fictional domain reviewer owns approval-boundary clarification and review of the route/content regression by the next paper release review. Close when the revised rubric, versioned case, and comparable replay are recorded.” This addresses the observed boundary but leaves real user coverage, production behavior, and causal attribution unverified.

Self-check: do not equate containment with root-cause confirmation. Keep the repair narrow enough to verify and broad enough to cover the actual failure path.