What follows is a representative example of a Diagnostic Structural Audit deliverable. Detailed audit modules and supporting evidence are included in full client deliverables.
Diagnostic Structural Audit Report
Product Audited: Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition
Publisher: Chaosium Inc
Publication Year: 2014
Format Audited: Core Rulebook
Failure Mode Examined:
Resolution of investigative scenes when investigators fail to obtain a necessary clue
Audit Type: Diagnostic Structural Audit
Diagnostic Question:
As written, does Call of Cthulhu 7e provide a complete procedure for resolving scenes where investigators fail to obtain a necessary clue—including fallback mechanics, scene exit conditions, or alternative discovery paths—or does resolution depend on Keeper improvisation?
Date: January 30, 2026
—
Scope Of Analysis
This document evaluates whether a single procedural element, as written, exists and resolves without external assumptions.
The analysis examines:
• Entry conditions
• Core resolution procedure
• Exit conditions
• Failure handling
• Dependency on GM improvisation
This is a bounded diagnostic, not a subsystem evaluation.
—
Important Note
This diagnostic audit describes procedural existence, not play quality, balance, pacing, or design intent.
The verdict applies only to the specific failure mode examined.
—
Scope Reminder
If the diagnostic question asks about “scene resolution,” “procedure completion,” or “full handling,” the entire procedure scope must be assessed, not only the most complete component.
Here, scene resolution includes both:
- Clue acquisition
- Scene consequences following failure.
Structural State Definition: The rules specify what kind of situation follows a failure (e.g., “investigators are placed in immediate danger”). This is a procedural output.
Content Generation: The rules specify what specifically happens within that situation. This requires either a defined procedure, a table, or bounded criteria. Advisory language (“the Keeper should consider…”) does not meet this standard.
A procedure that defines a structural state but leaves content generation to undocumented Keeper judgment is incomplete for this diagnostic question.
—
Verdict Categories
✗ Structurally Missing
Core procedure absent; failure handling absent when required.
⚠ Incomplete / Assumption-Dependent
Procedure partially defined; resolution depends on undocumented Keeper improvisation; text is advisory rather than procedural.
✓ Structurally Complete
All checks = ✓; no undocumented procedure steps; all entry, procedure, and exit conditions defined.
—
Evidence — Four Checks
CHECK 1: Structural Completeness
Evidence:
“An Idea roll is made when the players have become stuck at a point in the investigation…” (p. 199)
“Winning the Idea Roll… The Keeper should deliver the clue.” (p. 200)
“Losing the Idea Roll… A lost Idea roll gives the Keeper permission to put any of the investigators… in the ‘thick of things’… The Keeper starts the game again in medias res…” (p. 200)
Reasoning:
The text defines an entry condition (investigators stuck), a core procedure (Idea Roll), and outcomes for both success and failure. However, the specific content of the failure outcome is not procedurally determined and depends on Keeper creation (p. 200).
Status: ⚠
Finding: A fallback procedure ensures continued investigation and the acquisition of clues (pp. 199–200). The resulting danger scene is structurally mandated, but its content is not system-defined (p. 200).
—
CHECK 2: Dependencies
Evidence:
“The Keeper should consider the clue on offer and try to come up with the worst situation…” (p. 200)
“The Keeper has complete control of the situation… place the investigators in whatever situation is judged appropriate…” (p. 200)
“It is intended that both players and Keepers fashion their own justifications and consequences…” (p. 56)
Reasoning:
Outcome-affecting consequences are assigned to the Keeper’s discretion without procedural tools, tables, or bounded criteria (pp. 56, 200).
Status: ✗
Finding: The resolution of failed clue acquisition relies on undocumented Keeper judgment rather than a defined procedure (pp. 56, 200).
—
CHECK 3: Text Classification
Evidence:
“The Keeper should consider…” (p. 200)
“The Keeper should weave the delivery…” (p. 200)
“The Keeper allows the roll…” (p. 199)
“It is intended that… fashion their own justifications…” (p. 56)
Reasoning:
Language governing failure outcomes is advisory (“should,” “intended”) rather than procedural. The roll functions as a procedural trigger; outcome construction is narrative guidance (pp. 56, 199–200).
Status: ✗
Finding: Failure outcome generation is presented as guidance rather than as a rule-driven procedure (pp. 56, 200).
—
CHECK 4: Failure-State Definition
Evidence:
“If the players lose the Idea roll they find themselves in deep trouble.” (p. 200)
“The Keeper starts the game again in medias res…” (p. 200)
“A lost Idea roll gives the Keeper permission to put any of the investigators… in the ‘thick of things’.” (p. 200)
Reasoning:
The system replaces investigative deadlock with a defined structural state: clue obtained, immediate danger. The type of scene that follows failure is explicitly named. However, the specific content of that scene is not procedurally determined and depends on Keeper creation. Under this diagnostic’s distinction between structural state definition and content generation, the failure state type clears the procedural threshold; the failure state content does not.
Status: ⚠
Finding: The structural failure state is explicitly defined as clue acquisition with immediate peril. The content of that peril is improvised rather than system-generated.
—
VERDICT
VERDICT: ⚠
Checks 2 and 3 confirm that consequence generation relies on undocumented Keeper judgment with no procedural rules, tables, or bounded criteria governing exact outcomes (pp. 56, 200). However, although consequence generation lacks procedure, the explicit definition of the failure state trigger and exit condition in Checks 1 and 4 elevates the overall structure from functionally absent (✗) to incomplete (⚠). The system defines what kind of scene follows failure; it does not define what happens within it. Resolution remains dependency-bound at the content level.
—
Scope Note
This diagnostic audit evaluated only the specified failure mode concerning missed investigative clues. No claims are made about subsystem quality, incentive alignment, campaign viability, or overall product integrity.