Use the recovery checkpoint to interpret recurrence
Synthetic T-51 was closed after customer check E-51 succeeded on 10 October 2026. A later reply proves E-50, the original failed execution, is still incomplete; reopen its outcome. Another report records a new failure in E-52 on 12 October; create a linked recurrence episode. Do not erase E-51’s successful observation, and do not imply that one success guarantees every future execution.
| Evidence | Execution | Relationship | Case action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original gap remains | E-50 | Unfinished original outcome | Reopen original outcome |
| Verified check succeeded | E-51 | Recovery observation | Retain evidence |
| New failure on 12 October | E-52 | New recurrence after check | Open linked recurrence |
Preserve recovery and reopen the right work
- Locate original and recovery executions
- Match later failure evidence
- Separate original gap from recurrence
- Assign the relevant investigation
Without an execution reference or equivalent evidence, recurrence classification stays provisional.
Does opening E-52 require changing E-51 to failed?
Show the worked answer
No. E-51 remains a successful observed check. E-52 is a new failure; its cause may still be unknown.
Preserve successful and failed execution evidence separately. A newly reported occurrence may require a different cause investigation.