GOV-06 · Implementation gap

Compare what a real, already-enacted policy says on paper to how it is actually being implemented, using real evidence of the gap (or its absence).

One real, already-enacted policy with a clear implementation requirement (a statute, a regulation, a program mandate). The policy's own text describing what implementation should look like. Real evidence of actual implementation — an agency's own compliance report, an audit, local reporting with named sources, or documented case examples.

Assuming a gap exists without evidence. Treating a single anecdote as proof of a systemic gap. Ignoring evidence that implementation is actually going as intended.

Policy text with its stated implementation requirement; evidence assessment of actual implementation; an honest verdict — full gap, partial gap, or no meaningful gap — with the evidence that supports it either way.

CT: gap as a claim requiring evidence, not an assumption. CR: implementation evidence traceable to real sources. CO: peer checks one implementation claim against the cited evidence. CM: evidence assessment. CZ: people the policy was meant to help, whether or not the gap exists.

Government or public administration-adjacent teacher reviews the evidence standard used. School-supervised.

R1: one policy, one implementation question. R2: evidence traceable to real sources. R3: verdict follows the evidence, not a predetermined conclusion. R4: evidence against the student's initial assumption is engaged, not dropped. R5: assessment readable by someone unfamiliar with the policy.

(a) "Everyone knows this policy doesn't work" with no actual evidence cited. (b) One sympathetic anecdote standing in for a systemic claim.

Lane A immediately. No verified credit claim.