51 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
## 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.*
|