When State Inference Breaks Down A State-Based Naturalistic Calibration Framework: Methods and Boundary Analysis of a 48-State Inference System

This working paper examines a boundary failure of a state-based inference framework when applied to a civil litigation case under cumulative legal pressure. Using a naturalistic case analysis, the paper documents a systematic divergence between prior state-based trajectory inference and observed escalation across multiple legal fronts. Rather than treating the divergence as an anomaly to be absorbed, the paper frames it as a boundary condition identifying where interactional state inference becomes descriptively inadequate due to institutional coercion. The study contributes a failure-oriented perspective to state-based modelling by clarifying domain limits, exclusion criteria, and responsible deployment conditions for inference systems operating on interactional data. This paper is released as a working paper to support scholarly dialogue, methodological calibration, and future doctoral-level research development.