Infection control / patient safety
DEMO-39 — Independent Parallel Obligations, One Event, Two Unrelated Protocols
Authored demonstration. Not a live employer result.
01 · Situation
A single clinical event triggers two entirely separate obligations under two unrelated governing artifacts, with different owners, different evidence, and different closure conditions. Neither obligation's status affects the other.
Protocol A — illustrative infection-control reporting policy, triggered by this event type, assigning the infection-control team a reporting obligation within 24 hours, unrelated to Protocol B. Protocol B — illustrative patient-safety event-review policy, independently triggered by the same event type, assigning the unit's safety committee a review obligation within 7 days, with no shared closure condition or cross-reference to Protocol A.
02 · Evidence
What the record holds.
- E1Triggering clinical event
Verified · Day 0
- E2Protocol A, infection-control reporting requirement, 24 hours
Verified · on file
- E3Protocol B, safety-committee review requirement, 7 days
Verified · on file
- E4Infection-control report repository reviewed through Day 1; report completed and filed within the 24-hour window
Verified · Day 1
- E5Safety-committee review repository reviewed through Day 7; no review record found
Verified · Day 7
03 · Obligations / Owners
The chain of responsibility.
- 01
Infection-control team (report within 24 hours, per E2 — entirely independent).
- 02
Safety committee (review within 7 days, per E3 — entirely independent, no shared owner, no shared evidence, no shared closure condition with the first obligation).
04 · Event Type
The classification of the event.
EventObserved — E1 records the common trigger. ExecutionClaimed — E4 claims completion of the infection-control report. EvidenceAttached — E1–E5 are attached to the applicable obligations. VerificationCompleted — each obligation is evaluated independently against its own governing artifact, evidence, and deadline.
05 · Verification Result
What verification established.
Infection-control obligation: SUPPORTED, filed within its window. Safety-committee obligation: INSUFFICIENT, no review record found in the repository reviewed through its own 7-day window.
06 · Projection
What the evidence implies ahead.
One trigger, two obligations, two independent outcomes. The infection-control obligation is fulfilled; the safety-committee obligation is not demonstrably fulfilled. Neither finding affects the other.
07 · Next Action
The corrective obligation.
Determine whether the safety-committee review occurred through an accepted evidentiary path; if not, initiate or escalate that obligation as appropriate. No further action is required for the supported infection-control obligation.
08 · Economic Boundary
Where the evidence stops.
Not established.
09 · Engine Answer
What the Engine can and cannot establish.
A single event triggered two unrelated obligations under two unrelated protocols, each with its own owner, evidence, and closure condition. The infection-control report was filed within its 24-hour window — supported. The safety-committee review, independently reviewed against its own 7-day window, has no record — not demonstrably fulfilled. The Engine can demonstrate that a shared trigger produced two entirely independent dispositions: one fulfilled, one not, with neither status derived from or dependent on the other.
One trigger. Two protocols. Two separate answers, and neither one explains the other.
10 · What Remains Unknown
Outside the Engine's reach.
Whether the safety-committee review occurred but was not recorded in the reviewed repository, or did not occur; why no record appears.