{
  "registry_version": "1.0.0",
  "data": {
    "title": "Communication mismatch or tone friction in panel",
    "status": "active",
    "evidence_ids": [
      "evidence.employment_interview_reliability_new_meta_analytic_estimates_by_structure_and_format"
    ],
    "content": "# Communication mismatch or tone friction in panel\n\nNoticeable divergence in communication style, pacing, or terminology during live panel discussions.\n\n### Diagnostic Non-Inferences\n- Does not prove the candidate lacks teamwork skills in general.",
    "aliases": [
      "A-010"
    ],
    "id": "obs.communication_mismatch_or_tone_friction_in_panel",
    "type": "observation",
    "summary": "Noticeable divergence in communication style, pacing, or terminology during live panel discussions.",
    "stages": [
      "recruiter",
      "team"
    ],
    "evidence_level": "supported",
    "probes": [
      {
        "id": "PROBE-A-010-1",
        "action": "Ask the recruiter for explicit feedback on the collaborative dynamic.",
        "expected_signal": "Clarifies whether the friction was taken as an attitude issue or as a difference in style.",
        "cost": "low",
        "outcomes": [
          {
            "id": "nothing-added",
            "label": "A reply arrives that adds nothing to the note: the summary line comes back as it was written — communication not calibrated to the audience — or the answer states that feedback beyond what was already sent is not given. No round, no minute and no exchange is attached to it.",
            "excludes": [
              "mech.genuine_technical_skill_shortfall"
            ],
            "because": "Inability to provide a single grounded communicative exchange points to non-calibrated impression scoring rather than an evidence-based panel."
          },
          {
            "id": "moment-named",
            "label": "The recruiter names a specific exchange — which round, roughly when, what the question was about — and describes it as one moment rather than something that held across the session.",
            "excludes": [
              "mech.domain_specificity_over_weighting"
            ],
            "because": "A concrete communicative exchange demonstrates individualized panel recall, ruling out arbitrary non-specific impression bias."
          },
          {
            "id": "reception-framing",
            "label": "The answer moves from pacing to reception: the concern is put as how critique was taken, not as which level the answers sat at.",
            "excludes": [],
            "because": ""
          },
          {
            "id": "no-reply",
            "label": "No reply arrives at all: the request sits unanswered on the thread, and the written note remains the whole record of the round.",
            "excludes": [],
            "because": ""
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "specimens": [
      {
        "kind": "transcript",
        "label": "Panel discussion, transcript fragment",
        "context": "minute 22, architecture round",
        "lines": [
          {
            "speaker": "Interviewer A",
            "at": "22:05",
            "text": "So when you say the write path is eventually consistent, what does the client see?",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "speaker": "Candidate",
            "at": "22:14",
            "text": "Depends on the read. If it goes through the cache it can be stale by up to the TTL; if it goes to the primary it is current.",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "speaker": "Interviewer A",
            "at": "22:26",
            "text": "Sorry, I think we are talking past each other. I meant from the user perspective.",
            "tell": true
          },
          {
            "speaker": "Candidate",
            "at": "22:33",
            "text": "Ah — then: they may see their own write missing for a second or two.",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "speaker": "Interviewer A",
            "at": "22:38",
            "text": "That is what I was after.",
            "tell": false
          }
        ],
        "reading": "The disagreement was about which layer the question lived in, not about the answer. The content was right at both levels."
      },
      {
        "kind": "email",
        "label": "Panel feedback",
        "subject": "Feedback — architecture round",
        "lines": [
          {
            "text": "Technically solid throughout.",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "text": "The panel felt communication was not always calibrated to the audience — answers went to implementation detail where a product-level framing was wanted.",
            "tell": true
          }
        ],
        "reading": "Read against the transcript, this is one exchange generalised into a trait. Both readings fit the same recording, which is exactly why the observation is not a verdict."
      }
    ],
    "perspectives": [
      {
        "actor": "actor.candidate",
        "sees": "An exchange where the question and the answer sat at different levels, reconciled in the room within half a minute. Then written feedback that states the mismatch as a property of the answers.",
        "reads": "One exchange and a generalisation of it both fit the same recording; which of the two the panel worked from is not in the note.",
        "does": "Asks which moment the note refers to, and keeps the wording, since the note is the only version of the round that leaves the room."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.hiring_manager",
        "sees": "Written impressions from each interviewer after the round. The recording is not what the panel reviews.",
        "reads": "Wording that lines up across notes reads as a shared signal; a bad hire is visible for a year and has a name on it, a missed one has neither.",
        "does": "Decides on the note as written, since it is the record of the round, and has no cheap way to test whether it describes one exchange or a pattern."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.recruiter",
        "sees": "A summary line for the round: technically solid, communication not calibrated. What was said at minute twenty-two is not in the recruiter's view.",
        "reads": "A reason to relay, at the level of detail it was given at.",
        "does": "Passes the summary on, and when the candidate asks which moment it refers to, has the same sentence to answer with and nothing behind it."
      }
    ],
    "non_inferences": [
      "Does not prove the candidate lacks teamwork skills in general."
    ]
  }
}