# v0.6 Selection Influence Experiment

## Hypothesis

The initial unknown selected for the revenue-versus-cash scenario may be driven more by graph structure, more by semantic keyword matches, or by both together.

## Scenario

`Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.`

## Actual selected node

- Node ID: `nqdzobz`
- Label: `Magnitude and nature of cash outflows (operating expenses, debt repayments, capex, or working capital shifts).`
- Deterministic investigation strategy: `definition`
- Deterministic question: `What evidence would resolve whether magnitude and nature of cash outflows (operating expenses, debt repayments, capex, or working capital shifts). is true?`

## Structural contribution

- Downstream dependency count: `0`
- Prerequisite position: no unresolved prerequisites; count `0`
- Dependency ordering / centrality: no candidate had downstream dependants or dependency depth advantage in the live graph

## Semantic contribution

- Objective: false
- Actor: false
- Criteria: false
- Measurement: false
- Terminology: false
- Constraint: false
- Pricing: false
- Implementation: false
- Optimisation: false
- Speculative: false
- Contribution list: only `downstream_dependencies` was present, with delta `0`

## Counterfactual results

- Live-shaped ordering: `nqdzobz` ranked above `niewza`, but both had score `0`, downstream `0`, and unresolved prerequisites `0`
- Links removed: ordering stayed the same, because the live graph already provided no differentiating structure between the two unknowns
- Wording neutralised: ordering flipped to the first unknown by neutral label order (`Unknown A` before `Unknown B`), showing the outcome remained tie-break-driven rather than structure-driven

## Conclusion

For this scenario, the actual winner was not selected because of graph structure and not selected because of semantic keyword weights. The live diagnostics show a complete tie on score, downstream influence, and prerequisite position, with every semantic match category false for both candidates. The winner was therefore chosen by the final tie-break rule, `label_asc`.

## Is a scoring change justified?

Not from this single experiment alone. The result shows a diagnostic gap for this scenario, but this task does not justify a scoring change by itself, and no scoring change is made.