A matching error label is not an occurrence ID
Synthetic reports R-31 and R-32 concern customer C-3, export execution E-8 and the same missing row. They can share one case while retaining both contacts. R-33 has the same error label but execution E-9 after a confirmed repair. It is a new occurrence requiring investigation, not a duplicate of E-8. The fixture uses explicit execution evidence; a similar subject line is insufficient.
| Report | Customer / execution | Requested outcome | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-31 | C-3 / E-8 | Restore missing row A | Surviving case T-3 |
| R-32 | C-3 / E-8 | Same row A | Link contact to T-3 |
| R-33 | C-3 / E-9 | Row A missing again | New occurrence linked to T-3 |
Preserve contacts and distinguish occurrences
- Compare customer and execution evidence
- Compare requested outcome
- Link proven repeated reports
- Open distinct occurrence if needed
When occurrence evidence is missing, keep a possible-duplicate flag rather than closing either reported failure.
How many distinct failure occurrences are shown?
Show the worked answer
Two: E-8 and E-9. There are three contacts, but R-31 and R-32 concern one occurrence.
Retain every contact reference when linking repeated reports. A new occurrence needs its own investigation even when the error label matches.