# Strategy Guide — Scenario 56: The Wrong Gregory

**The win, named exactly as in the scenario data: "Ending — Both Files, Corrected."**

The best outcome: the indicated report against Katya is **expunged** — the hearing officer finds the agency did not carry its burden of proving the report accurate by substantial evidence, its own attendant statement outweighing its summary's adjective — with amendment orders as 23 Pa.C.S. § 6341(c.3) provides; and at the March 12th review, Lev is placed with his uncle Gregory T., approved unconditionally under his own identifiers, the corrected summary stapled in front of the wrong one.

**Graph-walked winning route (verified programmatically against `scenario-56.json`):**

`start → folder_system → sort_winter → lev_visit → appeal_filed → gregory_house → sponsor_talk → identifiers_ask → cousin_check → agency_meeting56 → correction56 → db_holders → program_letter56 → park_return → records56 → foster_mother56 → hospital_records → page_eleven → narrative_vs_file → hearing_prep56 → attendant_interview → january_visit → study_restart → gregory_references → katya_work → childline_letter → hearing_eve → hearing56 → the_wait56 → confirm56 → gregory_gate → study_addendum → decision_call → decision56 → march_packet → barlow_call → gregory_call56 → outcome56 → final_gate56 → end_bothfiles`

Final cash on the walked route: $237 of $260. The final gate requires `appealFiled`, `exculpatoryFound`, and `gregoryApproved`.

**The clock, audited:** the indicated notice is dated **Wednesday, December 9, 2026**; the 90-day appeal deadline under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6341(a)(2) is **Tuesday, March 9, 2027** (Dec 9 + 90 days, verified by date arithmetic in the generator). The appeal is filed in December — weeks inside the clock, because early is free. The appeal hearing is **Wednesday, January 27, 2027**; the decision issues **March 5, 2027**, inside the 45-day window (c.3) contemplates; the placement review is **Friday, March 12, 2027**.

**Verified law used:** the appeal right and clock (§ 6341(a)(2)); Act 119's architecture as v1 states it — the agency's burden to prove the report accurate by substantial evidence, (c.2)(5); the appellant's access to the evidence the agency collected, *including exculpatory evidence*, (c.2)(4) — the parks attendant's statement, on page eleven of the agency's own file since November; the written decision and expungement/amendment orders, (c.3); counsel (42 Pa.C.S. § 6337); and the record request (55 Pa. Code § 3130.44(d)) covering both the investigation file and the placement file that carried the tainted clearance summary. Deliberately not relied on: the (g) post-decision review clocks are left to the decision letter's own recital, rather than given a day count in play.

**Traps traced to endings:**

- **Treating the identity error as an insult instead of an identifiers problem.** The winning route demands the identifiers in writing (full name, date of birth, report number), supplies the cousin's distinguishing identifiers from the family's own records, and requires the correction to be transmitted to *every* holder of the wrong summary — county placement unit, study file, vendor, state extract — with written confirmations. A correction that reaches three of four holders is a rumor with good intentions.
- **Anger in ink.** The sponsor's rule governs every letter: someday a hearing officer reads them to decide who you are.
- **"Ending — One File Corrected (partial)":** Lev placed with Gregory; the report stands. The guide holds the two facts apart on purpose — the kinship track and the appeal track are separate files with separate burdens, and winning one does not launder the other.
- **"Ending — Upheld and Waiting":** both tracks stall — the appeal's judgment lands against the family and the study correction is still traveling. Traced to the time-shape of every mechanism: clocks run whether or not anyone feels ready.

**What no strategy controls:** the hearing officer (another officer could find the narrative sufficient on the same record — Act 119's burden shift raises the floor; it does not appoint the judge) and the dark luck at the scenario's center: had the conflated report been Gregory's own, the study's question would have been real and this ending unavailable. The strategy's claim is narrower and complete: both files now say what is true, and courts can work with true files.