This record was generated by the production version of SignalCheck. Same input produces the same result.

SignalCheck — Structural Verification Record

Status
REVIEW ADVISED — Structural Flags Present
Execution Mode
Local / Offline
Product Version
v0.1.0
Ruleset
v1
Timestamp (UTC)
2026-01-03 23:29:42 UTC
Reference ID
SC-20260103-232942-2942

Summary

Uncertainty Markers (Hedges)2
Repetition Flags3
Directive FormAuthoritative
Document Size381 words • 23 sentences • 6 paragraphs

Scope of Analysis

Evaluates:
  • Structural uncertainty markers
  • Repetition frequency
  • Sentence and paragraph structure
  • Directive form (structure only)
Does Not Evaluate:
  • Semantic meaning or intent
  • Factual accuracy
  • Legal sufficiency or compliance
  • Recommendations, rewriting, approval

Findings

Uncertainty Markers (Hedges)
  • could
  • may
Repetition Flags
  • certain
  • current
  • support
Directive Form
Authoritative

Document Telemetry

Words381
Sentences23
Paragraphs6
Paragraph density focus¶ #02 (19%)

Integrity & Provenance

Document Hash (SHA-256)b47371b8b87bf046231503dde4156bc877c2b59d0a913c13772b8448d679cd0f
Backend Build ID37c3ee5
Backend Binary HashN/A — Local Mode
Analysis MethodDeterministic pattern matching (ruleset v1)
Input HandlingProcessed locally; not uploaded

Disclaimer

SignalCheck performs deterministic structural analysis only.
It does not provide legal advice, interpretation, certification, or guarantees.

This record documents process diligence, not correctness or intent.

Appendix

Appendix — Original Input (Verbatim)

The following input is included for reference only and is not evaluated, certified, or endorsed by SignalCheck.

This analysis was performed on the exact input shown below.

An interagency review was initiated following the incident, and a preliminary summary was circulated. It was noted that certain coordination steps had been deferred, and that the documentation trail was not fully aligned with current guidance. The records may not reflect all informal decisions that were made at the time. Responsibility for consolidation was understood to be shared across several offices, and no single owner was designated for final reconciliation.

The operational plan was updated in draft form and was distributed for comment. It was indicated that revisions may be incorporated as appropriate after feedback is received, but no specific timetable was confirmed. The plan is expected to be considered during the next scheduled briefing, where feasible, and any follow-on actions will be determined in due course. Interim measures were proposed, although it is unclear which unit will formally authorize them.

Field reporting was collected from multiple sources and was compiled into a consolidated memo. The memo was prepared to support situational awareness and was not intended to serve as a definitive account. Several entries were marked as provisional and may be revisited if additional data becomes available. It was acknowledged that certain statements could be interpreted differently depending on context, and that clarifications should be drafted when resources allow.

Training updates were discussed, and it was suggested that refresher materials may be issued. The scope of those materials has not been finalized, and it remains to be seen whether delivery will occur within the current cycle. The responsible party is to be identified by the end of the quarter, subject to staffing considerations. Where feasible, a phased rollout will be attempted, although a complete schedule has not been established.

Contractor support was requested to address logistical constraints. Requests were forwarded for review, and a response is expected, but no firm commitments were provided. It was stated that support may be offered on a limited basis, contingent on availability and applicable approvals. It was further observed that certain dependencies could delay implementation beyond initial expectations.

In summary, the department may proceed with cautious adjustments while awaiting formal direction. It was agreed that the matter will be revisited after additional consultation, as appropriate. Until then, the current posture will remain in effect, and related communications will be drafted to reflect ongoing evaluation.
Appendix — Canonical JSON
{
  "reference_id": "SC-20260103-232942-2942",
  "timestamp": "2026-01-03 23:29:42 UTC",
  "status": "REVIEW ADVISED — Structural Flags Present",
  "analysis": {
    "repetition": {
      "certain": 3,
      "current": 3,
      "support": 3
    },
    "hedges": [
      "could",
      "may"
    ],
    "hedge_count": 2,
    "sentence_length": {
      "average": 17,
      "short": 1,
      "medium": 18,
      "long": 4
    },
    "paragraph_density": {
      "paragraph_1": "18%",
      "paragraph_2": "19%",
      "paragraph_3": "18%",
      "paragraph_4": "18%",
      "paragraph_5": "14%",
      "paragraph_6": "12%"
    },
    "modals": {
      "must": 0,
      "should": 1,
      "may": 6,
      "might": 0,
      "could": 2,
      "can": 0,
      "will": 7
    },
    "directive_strength": {
      "score": 80,
      "label": "Authoritative"
    },
    "verdict": "REVIEW ADVISED",
    "ambiguity_scan": "DETECTED",
    "ignored_signals": [],
    "disclaimer": "No advice or interpretation provided.",
    "signal_vs_noise": {
      "label": "Noise",
      "confidence": 40,
      "rationale": "High repetition of terms, Multiple hedge cues"
    },
    "read_load": {
      "index": 27,
      "components": {
        "average_sentence_length": 49,
        "long_sentence_rate": 12,
        "paragraph_imbalance": 3
      }
    }
  },
  "backend_build_id": "37c3ee5"
}