How can a scenario test whether a model mistakes repeated evidence for independent support?

An insurance review officer gathers evidence that a repair assessment received an independent technical check. CASE-0618 contains an assessor report, an email attachment and a document exported from the claims portal. Each repeats the same assessment text.

A document processing action gives the portal export a new file identifier. The bundle state changes from containing one candidate record to containing several candidates, and a model may describe the assessment as corroborated by multiple sources. The lineage fields show that every candidate derives from REP-2187.

The consequence is a false impression of independent review. None of the copies records a separate technical check. A defensible answer groups the copies by origin, chooses a suitable representative and identifies the missing independent review evidence.

This generated scenario supports evaluation of a specific failure mode: confusing file multiplicity with evidential independence. A scoring rule can assess whether the model recognises the common origin and avoids claiming corroboration. It should still allow duplicate copies to serve a legitimate purpose, such as showing where a record was distributed, when that is the claim under review.