R0021/2026-03-25/Q002 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Widely protected | H2: Minimal/unenforced | H3: Varies by jurisdiction | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Cross-jurisdictional comparison (Germany criminal, Canada civil, US varies) | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC02-E01: Ontario $6,000 fine for resume title misuse | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC03-E01: US PE requires degree + exams + 4yr experience | + | -- | + |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | The cross-jurisdictional comparison is most diagnostic because it directly discriminates between H1 (universal protection) and H3 (variable protection). The variation between Germany's criminal penalties and US states' limited protection of compound titles is the key discriminating evidence. |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | PE licensing requirements exist in all US states, making this evidence non-discriminating between H1 and H3. |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — Protection varies significantly by jurisdiction in both scope (which title variants are protected) and enforcement (criminal vs. civil vs. none).
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — Active enforcement with documented penalties eliminates the "unenforced" hypothesis.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Partially supported; title is widely protected but not uniformly, making "widely protected" an oversimplification.