Lesson map
Lesson 09. Map, example, EX055.
flowchart TD
Z["old-backup.zip in the export"] --> P["Third failure line"]
R["Retention check with Mark"] --> X["Prose: the zip was deleted"]
P --> Q{"Does deletion edit the triple?"}
X --> Q
Q -->|No| K["The line stays"]
Removal from storage is not removal from the evidence list.
Logical drawing
still printed: old-backup.zip: anyone-with-link
prose only: deleted after the retention check
not recorded: a sanitization method, a recycler, a date
Learning outcomes
After this chapter, you should be able to:
- Keep
old-backup.zipon the failure list. - Place the deletion in the decision log.
- Refuse a sanitization certificate the file does not contain.
9.1 The zip is still the third failure line.
old-backup.zip is sensitive and set to anyone-with-link, so the comprehension prints it. The prose then says the zip came from a previous system, was no longer needed, and was deleted after Mark and the retention rules were checked. That sequence is a log entry. The triple is unchanged, so a reader of the script still sees the third line.
Deletion here means the clinic stopped keeping that copy. The page does not name a sanitization method, a tool, a recycler, or a disposal date. A certificate of wiping cannot be copied out of a sentence that never stated one. Fewer copies was the stated reason for removing an unneeded archive, not a measured proof that every other copy was found.
The activity-log check before the deletion is also prose. It is not a column beside the triple. Invoices were restricted rather than deleted; that different action must not be collapsed into the zip's story. Both objects remain failure lines in the export.
9.2 Worked example
Lesson table; scroll horizontally to read all columns →
| Claim | Where it would have to be | Decision |
|---|---|---|
The third line names old-backup.zip |
The filter output | Keep |
| The zip was deleted after a retention check | The log | Keep as prose |
| "The script dropped the zip once it was deleted." | No edited list | Refuse |
| "A wipe certificate shows the method." | No method is written | Refuse |
Synthetic case. Mark is the owner who was consulted. No disposal firm is named.
Errors and limits
Do not describe a wiping procedure. The evidence stops at the export line and the log.
Apply
- EX055 — Zip versus log. A classmate removes
old-backup.zipfrom the eight triples, printsshared too widely 2, and attaches a wipe certificate. What remains true?Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = the triple stays; the third failure line stays; deletion stays in the log after the retention check; no method, recycler, or date is printed;; 2 = the line stays and the certificate is refused;; 1 = one point;; 0 = none.