3 KiB
3 KiB
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.