Match execution evidence before combining it
Synthetic customer screenshot S-91 shows missing row B in execution E-91. Log L-91 belongs to E-90 and reports success; log L-92 belongs to E-91 and shows only row A was produced. Only S-91 and L-92 can support a combined observation for E-91. Time proximity or the same customer name is insufficient when explicit execution references disagree. The cause remains unproven.
| Evidence | Execution | Observation | Use for E-91 |
|---|---|---|---|
| S-91 | E-91 | B missing in customer file | Yes |
| L-91 | E-90 | A,B produced | No; different execution |
| L-92 | E-91 | A only produced | Yes |
Build a consistent observation set
- List evidence references
- Match execution identity
- Separate conflicting or unrelated runs
- Record supported observation
Missing execution evidence stays unassociated until another reliable link is established; do not guess by timestamp alone.
Does L-91 contradict the E-91 screenshot?
Show the worked answer
No. It describes E-90. L-92 matches E-91 and supports the missing-B observation, without proving its technical cause.
Keep the execution link on each evidence item. If those links disagree, do not combine the observations into one result.