Comparing Case Records
Last updated 10/7/2026
Case comparison is useful only when the records are comparable. This lesson asks you to name the provenance, choose one field or rule, and record what the comparison can and cannot show.
A sequence of cases does not become evidence merely because the stories sound similar. The question, chart fields, cited rule or named course convention, and outcome status must stay visible.
Begin with provenance
| Case type | What it contains | What it cannot claim |
|---|---|---|
| Documented textual case | A traceable source record with a locator | That every interpretation in the source is universally valid |
| Recorded contemporary case | A real record with appropriate consent and provenance | More than the actual record and permission support |
| Reconstructed teaching case | An adaptation whose changes are disclosed | That its altered fields or result came from the original source |
| Invented illustration | UAYA-created inputs for a teaching operation | A real outcome or support for a doctrine |
| Learner exercise | A prompt, chart, or refusal task | A result that has not been observed and recorded |
The comparison matrix
Complete one row per claim:
| Record A | Record B | Compared field or rule | Same inputs and declared authority? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| provenance + locator | provenance + locator | one named claim | yes / no / unclear | supports / contradicts / unresolved / not comparable |
Not comparable is a complete result. Do not force two records into agreement by changing the question, hiding a missing input, or translating different rules into the same vague label.
Three-way weather-case exercise
Use these three records without adding an outcome:
- Documented record: the source asks a same-day clear/cloudy question, supplies a chart and interpretation, and later reports an observation.
- Reconstructed mechanics record: reproduce Hexagram 3 → 19 and moving lines 2 and 5 from the chart printed in the cited source, while omitting the source interpretation and observation.
- Screening exercise: replace the source task with a request for a current local forecast. The correct artifact is
refer + stop; there is no chart.
Compare one claim at a time:
| Claim | Proper comparison result |
|---|---|
| “The reconstruction reproduces the chart construction.” | Compare every reconstructed chart field with the chart printed in the cited source: supports if the fields match. |
| “The reconstruction verifies the source interpretation.” | Not comparable; chart construction does not test interpretation. |
| “The historical record authorizes a current forecast.” | Not comparable; the place, date, task, and evidence owner changed. The proposed present use is excluded. |
| “The refusal record failed because it has no cast.” | Contradicted by the page job; refusal is the intended complete output. |
Preserve ambiguity and disagreement
When two genuinely declared authorities differ, name both public locators and record the exact difference. If only one authority is actually stated, do not manufacture a second “course boundary” to make the record look balanced. An unresolved rule may remain unresolved; a later outcome cannot be used to invent or choose an authority retroactively.
Stop condition
Stop at unresolved or not comparable when provenance, question scope, required inputs, declared authority, or outcome status is missing. Do not compare health, legal, financial, safety, relationship, or other consequential cases in this exercise; the previous lesson already routes those questions away from interpretation.
Scope note: the case-type labels distinguish documented observation, reconstructed mechanics, invented exercise, and safety screening in plain language. The comparison matrix and its result labels are explicit UAYA teaching design. The weather-case exercise retains the public-source boundaries recorded in the preceding audit.