# Case scope and examination request

**Document ID:** NW-FA-SCOPE-001
**Version:** 1.0
**Effective date:** 2026-08-04
**Case reference:** MP2607-0016-PUBLIC-AUDIO-REVIEW

## Examination question

What speech, if any, is reasonably supported by the publicly circulated
Sea Tow recording, particularly during the disputed opening passages?

The examination is directed toward the stability and limitations of audible
wording in the circulated recording. It is not directed toward determining
criminal conduct, intent, guilt, or innocence.

## Material examined

The primary working material is a YouTube-derived copy of the publicly
circulated Sea Tow call.

- Public source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oshE23g-rTY
- Claimed original filename:
  `CXone recording_Victoria Garcia_2026-07-04_21-48[UTC]_29427a8b-5b62-45b9-81c1-e95148784c4c_01.mp4`
- Native CXone/MDMR export: not obtained
- Relationship to native file: derivative and transcoded

File hashes and technical metadata are recorded in
`EVIDENCE-MANIFEST.json`, which is generated from the files actually present
in the repository.

## Defined regions of interest

| ID | Start | End | Purpose |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| A-broad | 0.00 s | 1.80 s | Opening disputed speech |
| A-tight | 0.08 s | 1.62 s | Tight Candidate A interval |
| B | 3.40 s | 8.80 s | Weak background speech interval |
| C-broad | 10.80 s | 15.80 s | Later disputed speech |
| C-tight | 12.55 s | 15.05 s | Tight Candidate C interval |

Additional intervals may be examined, but each new interval must be entered
in the observation record with the reason it was selected.

## Questions outside scope

This project does not claim to:

- authenticate the native CXone/MDMR recording;
- establish an uninterrupted chain of custody before public distribution;
- identify a speaker;
- infer conduct or intent from perceived wording;
- recover information discarded before acquisition;
- treat automatic speech-recognition output as a transcript;
- use generated speech as evidence;
- certify the work as an accredited laboratory examination.

## Permitted conclusions

Conclusions may describe:

- measurable properties of the examined derivative file;
- channel structure and signal characteristics;
- whether proposed wording is stable, probable, plausible, unintelligible,
  or not confirmed under the adopted confidence framework;
- the effect and limitations of disclosed non-generative processing;
- limitations caused by the source and examination conditions.