The finding schema in §VIII has nine slots. Apply it to the Pearson writeup.
Source artefact: Pearson and §1983. Claim: a corrective channel for constitutional violations by state officials. Class: form credited as execution. Trace: seven gates, merits prong skippable. Those four are on the page.
Evidence and threshold: a 70% teaching calibration the page says is not a base rate. Respondent route: unfilled. Correction protocol: unfilled. §V says a class without false-positive audits and a correction history is a candidate, not a class.
The specimen is being asked to carry a vulnerability-class illustration while failing the page's own promotion rule.
The page already stops the finding at three records: source claim, missing carrier, trace boundary. The nine-slot schema is the target shape, not a claim that Pearson has been through it.
Yield discipline is named as next work. The 70% figure is labelled a teaching calibration. A reader who treats the specimen as a certified class is ignoring the promotion rule, not applying it.
Then Pearson cannot be used as a vulnerability-class specimen under that rule. Recode the row as a candidate illustration, or fill evidence/threshold, respondent route, and correction protocol for this case.
A discipline that publishes class tables first and audit records later is doing the formal-availability move it diagnoses: the class name is credited as an execution path the audit has not delivered.
Give two auditors the page and Pearson. Ask them to fill evidence/threshold and the correction protocol.
If they split on what the finding relies on, or on how a challenge withdraws it, the schema is not yet a finding format an oversight actor can test or reject. It is a list of slot names.