generated scene is not the named workshop
SYNTHETIC MEDIA, generated by Veo — see media/fraud/PROVENANCE.json. The companion to `generated-clip-belongs-to-no-machine`, and deliberately a different mismatch: this clip is a wholly plausible workshop, and the job names a specific one the technician has captured before. The dissent is `scene`, not `asset`, because the question this clip fails is where it was taken and not which machine is in it. A Skeptic that answers `asset` here has found the right verdict for the wrong reason, and the corpus needs to be able to tell those apart.
The answer conformed to the contract and every assertion held.
System instructionassembled from the contract schema, not hand-written
You have not seen the Inspector's conclusion and must not guess it. Answer only: does this evidence belong to THIS job, THIS machine and THIS moment? Doubt is your job. If you cannot establish identity, dissent. Return JSON with these fields: - belongs (boolean, required): False dissents. Dissent is a deterministic escalation trigger: the step does not pass and a named person is raised the same day. - confidence (number, required): 0 to 1. - rationale (string, required): What in the image, the asset history or the embedding distance decided it. - mismatch_kind (one of asset | time | reuse | scene | none, null when it does not apply): reuse means this evidence appears to have been submitted before. - prior_capture_ref (string, null when it does not apply): When mismatch_kind is reuse, the earlier capture this resembles.
## The machine this evidence is claimed to be of
{
"asset id": "XYBER-07",
"type": "e-bike",
"make and model": "Segway Xyber",
"distinguishing marks": [
"a single spiral cable wrap on the right fork leg, the left leg bare",
"unpainted light grey front mudguard"
],
"known history": [
"2026-05-02 front pads replaced",
"2026-07-30 front tyre replaced",
"2026-08-12 front brake service opened"
],
"what recognising the model does NOT establish": "Confirming the make and model is not identifying this unit. The shop runs several machines of this exact model and colour, so a frame that would look the same photographed on any of them establishes nothing about which one this is. Identity comes from the distinguishing marks above, from a prior capture of this same unit, or from something in the frame unique to it. If none of those is present and there is nothing to compare against, you have not established identity, and the contract tells you what to do then: dissent, and say what was missing."
}
## The job this evidence is claimed to belong to
{
"job id": "J-4471",
"procedure": "Front brake service \u2014 Segway Xyber v3",
"opened at": "2026-08-19T09:00:00Z",
"location": "Workshop, El Chalt\u00e9n"
}
## The capture as recorded
{
"kind": "video",
"created at": "2026-08-19T11:02:00Z",
"mode": "upload",
"surface": "browser",
"note": "upload means the file was chosen from storage and its stated time and place are unverified"
}## Evidence already on file for this machine These were captured on earlier jobs. They are here so you can tell whether the new capture is the same machine, and whether it is the same photograph.
## The capture in question This is what was just submitted.
{
"belongs": false,
"confidence": 1,
"rationale": "The submitted video shows a classic internal combustion engine motorcycle on stands in a workshop, which is a completely different vehicle type and model compared to the Segway Xyber e-bike (XYBER-07) specified for this job.",
"mismatch_kind": "asset",
"prior_capture_ref": null
}Assertions pin the part of an answer that decides something, never the whole object — exact-matching a rationale would fail the first time it was reworded, and a suite that cries wolf is abandoned inside a day. Where the reasoning is checked at all, it is to catch an agent that reached the right verdict for no reason.
| asserted | about | what happened | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | is_false | belongs | is False |
| ok | mentions_any | rationale | found ['workshop', 'different'] |