project: fail due to lack of communication

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mission
Weight: 0.65
, upgrade
Weight: 0.64
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, web site
Weight: 0.61
Siblings restoration
Weight: 0.69
, expansion
Weight: 0.69
, construction site
Weight: 0.68
, landscaping
Weight: 0.68
, construction worker
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
fail due to lack of communication 1.00
fail due to lack 0.96
is fail 0.79
fail mckinsey 0.78
fail 0.78
fail project management 0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(restoration, fail)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(restoration, fail)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(restoration, fail)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(project, fail due to lack of communication)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(project, fail due to lack)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(project, fail due to lack)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(project, fail due to lack)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(project, fail due to lack)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(project, is fail)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(project, is fail)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(project, is fail)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Salient(project, fail mckinsey)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(project, fail mckinsey)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(project, fail mckinsey)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Salient(project, fail)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(project, fail)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(project, fail)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(project, fail mckinsey)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(project, is fail)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(project, fail)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(project, fail project management)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(project, fail project management)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Salient(project, fail project management)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(project, fail project management)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(project, fail due to lack of communication)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(project, fail due to lack of communication)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(restoration, fail)