## IV. Case Studies

This section presents a **side-by-side forensic linguistic breakdown** of two structurally similar insurance claims:

- **Claim A**: A verified honest account of vehicle damage from a weather incident.
- **Claim B**: A confirmed fraudulent claim involving staged damage and fabricated context.

Each narrative is analyzed through the lens of **recursive resonance**, highlighting the subtle but measurable linguistic divergences between truth and intentional deception.

---

### Comparative Breakdown

| Feature                         | Claim A (Honest)                            | Claim B (Fraudulent)                         |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| **Lexical Hedging**            | Sparse; mostly circumstantial uncertainty   | Frequent; "sort of", "maybe", "kind of" used to dilute specificity |
| **Emotional Flatness**         | Organic emotional fluctuations              | Controlled affect; "inserted" expressions of sympathy or distress |
| **Narrative Reconstruction**   | Linear, with healthy self-corrections       | Circular, redundant, with timeline inconsistencies |
| **Temporal Drift**             | Stable reference points                     | Shifting timestamps and ambiguous sequence logic |
| **Empathic Bypass**            | Empathizes with third parties (e.g., the adjuster) | Centered solely on personal loss and entitlement |
| **Claimant Displacement**      | Clear ownership of experience               | Passive constructions and third-person framing of events |

---

### Recursive Signature Tables

Each claim was analyzed using our Recursive Witness Dynamics engine to detect unique **Recursive Signatures** — layered micro-patterns of self-referential breakdown.

#### Claim A: Recursive Signature

| Pattern Type        | Strength (0–1) | Notes                                      |
|---------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Narrative Overcontrol | 0.12           | No evidence of excessive scripting         |
| Temporal Drift       | 0.08           | Minor hesitations, not systematic          |
| Disfluency Markers   | 0.20           | Natural speech pattern                     |
| Recursive Integrity  | 0.91           | High coherence and self-consistency        |

#### Claim B: Recursive Signature

| Pattern Type        | Strength (0–1) | Notes                                      |
|---------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Narrative Overcontrol | 0.72           | Rehearsed detail with excessive structure  |
| Temporal Drift       | 0.64           | Contradictory timestamps                   |
| Disfluency Markers   | 0.58           | Frequent false starts and corrections      |
| Recursive Integrity  | 0.34           | Severe breakdown under questioning         |

---

> *A liar must remember the lie. A witness must remember the truth.  
> The former leaves residue in language.  
> The latter radiates coherence.*