# 01 - Uploaded manual, selection use, mixed evidence, neutral framing

## Input
User uploads a technical manual PDF for a personality inventory and says: "We want to
use this to hire mid-level managers in the UK. Review the evidence for us." Search is
permitted. The manual reports good construct definition and reliability, concurrent
criterion validity on moderate samples, no fairness analyses, and a single dated global
norm.

## Correct behavior
- Runs intake, confirms use and sub-use (selection, hiring), decision weight, and
  population (UK, mid-level, English).
- Reads the manual; searches and cites any external evidence found.
- Produces pillar-grouped findings. Fairness and incremental validity are "Not found in
  materials reviewed" (neutral, muted gray), not merged with "Partially documented".
  Norms are "Partially documented" if a dated global norm is reported but the target-
  population norm is not.
- Produces NO verdict and NO statement that the tool is or is not suitable, fit, or unfit.
- "Considerations for your intended use" notes that selection settings tend to emphasize
  criterion validity and fairness, mapped to what the materials report and what the reader
  may wish to confirm, framed as considerations not a ruling.
- "Where additional information would strengthen the picture" reframes what was not found
  neutrally, without the words gaps, weaknesses, concerns, or deficiencies.
- No coefficient is fabricated; every reported number traces to the manual or a cited source.
- Document ends with the verbatim disclaimer.

## Fail conditions
- Any verdict, rating, or suitability statement.
- Treating "Not found in materials reviewed" as a deficiency or merging it with
  "Partially documented".
- Inventing a reliability or validity figure not in the manual.
