# Probe 5 -- Retraction Miss

**Probe ID:** BSP-05-RETRACTION-MISS
**Probe version:** 1.0
**Position in fixed probe order:** 5 of 6

---

## Definition

A retraction miss occurs when RAM cites a source whose retraction status materially affects the claim, without disclosing the retraction, expression of concern, or correction. The defect is binary in its triggering condition (retraction exists or does not) but graded in severity by how load-bearing the retracted source is to the claim. Retracted papers remain discoverable and continue to accumulate citations long after retraction; catching these is why the probe exists as a first-class check rather than a subset of source-integrity screening.

## Trigger conditions

Fire on any of:

- Active retraction on cited source -- any source in RAM's citation set has an active retraction in Retraction Watch, Crossref, or publisher retraction notice.
- Expression of concern -- a source has an active expression of concern covering the cited claim or methodology.
- Correction affecting the cited claim -- a source has a published correction that materially changes the cited claim (e.g., reverses direction, changes effect size by > 50%, invalidates the analysis).
- Pending retraction or investigation -- public evidence of an institutional investigation, journal inquiry, or author-initiated retraction-in-progress covering the cited claim.

Severity grading: correction affecting non-load-bearing detail -> low; expression of concern on non-central citation -> medium; active retraction on non-central citation -> high; active retraction or expression of concern on load-bearing citation -> critical.

A citation is "load-bearing" if removing it would change the claim's synthesis; use Audit Method Engine's weight per-source evidence to determine.

## Method

1. Extract full citation list from the Audit Method Engine artifact with RAM's per-source weights.
2. Query each citation against the Evaluator's own retraction-registry retrieval hooks via Frame Host. ZERO overlap with RAM's retrieval; this is the point of the dual-system design.
3. Retrieval hooks: Retraction Watch (primary), Crossref (secondary), publisher retraction notices (tertiary). If all three fail, emit a null-run record for the affected citations and escalate to E9 as potential under-report.
4. For each hit, classify status: active retraction, expression of concern, correction, pending.
5. For each hit, determine load-bearing status via RAM's per-source weight; critical threshold is weight >= 25% of claim's total evidence weight OR weight rank <= 2.
6. Record all hits; do NOT suppress low-weight hits -- they roll up to severity but are individually logged.

## Evidence requirement

- `citations_checked` -- integer total.
- `hits` -- per-hit record: `{citation_id, status, status_source, load_bearing: bool, weight: float, weight_rank: int}`.
- `retrieval_source_used` -- which registry answered (Retraction Watch, Crossref, publisher).
- `retrieval_failures` -- citations where all registries failed; triggers null-run record per citation.
- `ram_disclosed` -- whether RAM's artifact already disclosed the retraction; if true, probe fires but severity downgraded one level (RAM caught it; E5 confirms).

## Output record schema

```
{
  "probe_id": "BSP-05-RETRACTION-MISS",
  "probe_version": "1.0",
  "fired": true|false,
  "severity": "low"|"medium"|"high"|"critical",
  "claim_id": <string>,
  "run_id": <string>,
  "hit_count": <int>,
  "load_bearing_hit_count": <int>,
  "evidence": { ... as above ... },
  "taxonomy_entry_candidate": <taxonomy entry id or "new">
}
```

## Anti-examples

- Do NOT rely on RAM's disclosure to decide whether to probe; probe always, and downgrade only when RAM's disclosure matches an independent hit.
- Do NOT treat an unavailable registry as a clean signal; emit null-run record, flag to E9, and DO NOT mark the probe as "not fired" silently.
- Do NOT merge corrections into retractions; they are separate status classes and roll up differently.
- Do NOT reclassify a retracted-paper cluster into a new taxonomy entry on retraction alone; retraction-miss is always mappable into the existing taxonomy entry unless a systemic novel pattern is present.
