Glossary and evidence labels

Use this page to decode the Wiki's main domain terms, mechanism codes and traceability identifiers. Definitions describe how the terms are used here; they do not replace the linked primary or programme authority.

Domain terms

Term	Meaning in this Wiki
PFD	Prevention of Future Deaths report made by a coroner where circumstances create a risk of other deaths and action should be taken. A future-risk concern is not automatically a causal finding about the investigated death.
EHR / EPR	Electronic health record / electronic patient record. The source material uses both; neither term implies one product or architecture.
ePRF	Electronic patient report form, particularly for ambulance records in this corpus.
DPHC	Defence Primary Healthcare.
DMICP	Defence Medical Information Capability Programme, the current Defence clinical-record capability discussed in the application layer.
Programme CORTISONE	The Defence health-information capability programme to which the Wiki translates candidate requirements and assurance questions.
DCB0129 / DCB0160	NHS clinical-safety standards for manufacturers and deploying health organisations respectively. Mention does not establish current DMICP or CORTISONE conformance.
ICMM	International Conference on Military Medicine; the Wiki contains a working 2026 publication workspace.

Traceability identifiers

Prefix	Record	Authority boundary
`SRC-`	Registered source	Records provenance, type, retrieval and reliability limits; a source's existence does not validate every claim made from it.
`CLM-`	Controlled claim	Preserves an explicit source/report/mechanism trace where one is needed. Not every extracted field requires a claim row.
`DIS-`	Counter-position record	Preserves a bounded relationship between registered primary and response statements: compatible clarification, material disagreement, remedy counter-risk or documentary anomaly. It does not adjudicate by preference.
`REQ-`	Candidate Defence requirement	Analytical translation until Defence validates and accepts it.
`AST-`	Designed assurance test	Test design only until executed and supported by recorded evidence.

Mechanism codes

Codes are non-exclusive reviewer classifications. They describe a mechanism in the bounded corpus and are not prevalence, causal-weight or product-safety scores.

Code	Meaning	Finding
`VIS`	Information visibility	Information visibility and decision support
`ALERT`	Decision support and alerting	Information visibility and decision support
`LOOP`	Action ownership and closed-loop work	Closed-loop work and action ownership
`INT`	Interoperability and continuity	Interoperability, identity and continuity
`IDPOP`	Identity, registration and population management	Interoperability, identity and continuity
`PROV`	Data quality, provenance and auditability	Record integrity and provenance
`RES`	Resilience and degraded operation	Resilience and degraded operation
`GOV`	Governance and assurance	Governance and assurance
`HF`	Human factors and usability	Human-factors lens

Statement labels

Coronial finding or concern: what the primary PFD report says, retaining its report-specific causal wording.
Recipient account: what a responding organisation says; neither a coronial finding nor proof that proposed action was completed or effective.
Reviewer extraction or coding: a structured representation made for this evidence map.
Cross-case synthesis: a bounded interpretation of recurrence, variation and limits across included reports.
Defence translation: a candidate requirement, scenario or hypothesis requiring current Defence evidence.

Dataset and assurance statuses

Label	Meaning
`Primary source linked; high-confidence extraction`	The full primary report was checked and the relevant mechanism is explicit. This is not a causal-certainty score or an independent second review.
`Primary source linked; qualified extraction`	The mechanism, remedy or causal relevance is indirect, contested or dependent on respondent context; read the report-specific qualification.
`Response evidence noted`	One or more official response attachments are registered for the report. This does not show complete recipient coverage or implementation.
`No official response located`	The existing recorded search did not locate one; it is not proof that none exists.
`Not assessed in this dataset`	No claim is made about response existence.
`direct_case_claims`	The candidate requirement is supported by direct report-linked claims, while Defence applicability remains unvalidated.
`partial_scope_extension`	The cited claims support part of the candidate control, but some scope is an analytical extension.
`hypothesis`	The candidate control is a reasoned proposition rather than a direct translation from the cited report claims.
`candidate_trace_complete_defence_unvalidated`	The configured claim/case trace is complete; applicability and acceptance in Defence are not.
`candidate_partial_trace_defence_unvalidated`	The trace is explicit but does not directly evidence the whole candidate control; Defence validation is absent.
`candidate_hypothesis_defence_unvalidated`	The requirement remains a Defence-unvalidated analytical hypothesis.
`designed_not_executed`	The assurance scenario is designed, but no result demonstrates system conformance, clinical safety or operational acceptance.

The canonical route is primary source → report → claim → mechanism → candidate requirement → assurance test.