{
  "title": "Surface coal sample and lot records for AI review",
  "source_page": "https://fiund.com/industries/surface-coal-lot-sampling-data",
  "authorship": "Original fictional Fiund editorial exercise. No actual operating records or third-party source assets are included.",
  "example": {
    "title": "One attributed sample cannot label a whole stockpile",
    "context": "The practice surface-coal ledger contains two stockpile aliases, three sample tags and a combined summary. No real coal quality or stockpile quantity is used.",
    "records": [
      [
        "SL1",
        "Fictional sample tag S-A",
        "Confirmed association to lot Cedar; observation U=4 practice units for this sample."
      ],
      [
        "SL2",
        "Sample tags S-B and S-C",
        "S-B shares S-A's date but has no lot association. S-C is confirmed to lot Birch."
      ],
      [
        "SL3",
        "Combined summary",
        "Reports U=6 for material combined from Cedar and Birch; no allocation or weighting is supplied."
      ]
    ],
    "question": "Which sample can be cited as evidence from Cedar, and what Cedar-wide or S-B claims remain unsupported?",
    "answer": "SL1 directly associates S-A and its observation of 4 practice units with Cedar. SL2 supplies only a shared date for S-B, so its lot remains unresolved. SL3 combines Cedar and Birch without allocation or weighting. It cannot establish Cedar's separate value, and S-A alone does not document representativeness of the entire lot. Keep sample-level attribution separate from whole-lot inference.",
    "failureModes": [
      "Using a shared collection date to assign S-B to Cedar.",
      "Reporting the combined value or one sample observation as Cedar's established whole-lot value."
    ],
    "fields": [
      [
        "Sample-to-lot evidence",
        "Identifies a confirmed association rather than a date-based guess."
      ],
      [
        "Sample scope",
        "Records which portion the observation actually describes."
      ],
      [
        "Combined-report composition",
        "Shows which lots contributed without inventing allocation."
      ],
      [
        "Representativeness evidence",
        "Makes the absence of a lot-wide inference rule explicit."
      ]
    ],
    "holdout": "Provide a verified S-B-to-Cedar correction but no sampling-design evidence. The answer should resolve the identity gap while still withholding a whole-stockpile quality claim.",
    "boundary": "Do not include real material quality, mine locations, quantities, customer specifications, operations photographs or control-system information. The exercise is an offline records task."
  }
}