# DenQAI: owner case evidence index

File-specific companion · 2026-09-10

## Purpose

Which exact proposition does each case record support or contradict?

**Who:** Case-draft preparer and independent evidence reviewer

**Records:** Coded case identifier; broad evidence period; private locator; permitted evidence summaries and review status.

## Complete the file

1. Enter schema_version, protocol_version, case_id, and record_id consistently.
2. Record source_kind, support_relationship, verification_state, supports, and contradicts independently.
3. Preserve limitation, public_use_status, consent_status, and submission_status without converting a local draft into permission.

## Definitions

- **Support relationship:** How the record relates to the exact proposition.
- **Source control:** Independent reconciliation or check on the source record.
- **Public-use status:** Separate determination of whether the information is cleared for public use.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: CASE-EV-01 points to a coded loan statement for 2024 Q2; it may support a payment amount while not establishing why the owner chose to sell.

## Review and next action

Review the strongest contradiction and any missing source control before using the case finding.

A direct record is not automatically verified. Local draft, consent, submission, and public release are separate statuses; the current tool does not enroll cases.

[Related DenQAI guide](https://denqai.com/research/case-series/prepare)

## AI coach prompt

Help me use DenQAI’s owner case evidence index. My question is: Which exact proposition does each case record support or contradict? Explain these terms in plain language: Support relationship, Source control, Public-use status. Ask one question at a time about the required records: Coded case identifier; broad evidence period; private locator; permitted evidence summaries and review status. Walk through the supplied fictional example before asking me for inputs. Treat every missing value as unknown, not zero. Do not invent source records, contract terms, legal conclusions, or clinical facts. Use only permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying information. Follow this boundary: A direct record is not automatically verified. Local draft, consent, submission, and public release are separate statuses; the current tool does not enroll cases. End with the missing evidence and this next step: Review the strongest contradiction and any missing source control before using the case finding.

## AI review prompt

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate draft of DenQAI’s owner case evidence index against the file instructions. Check each required field and period, units, evidence locator, assumptions, arithmetic where formulas are actually supplied, and unresolved contradictions. Check the sequence: Enter schema_version, protocol_version, case_id, and record_id consistently. Record source_kind, support_relationship, verification_state, supports, and contradicts independently. Preserve limitation, public_use_status, consent_status, and submission_status without converting a local draft into permission. Separate facts from assumptions and missing records. Do not supply unsupported numbers or make a professional decision for me. Apply this limitation: A direct record is not automatically verified. Local draft, consent, submission, and public release are separate statuses; the current tool does not enroll cases. Return corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer, and the next action.