Rule: Prox card data can only the basis for an adverse consequence in a criminal investigation

Facts:
-On Monday at 9am Student Sam in granted extension on paper due to illness based on claim that she is sick in bed
-an entry in the CSAIL prox card log (public) shows Sam entering 5th floor of CSAIL at 9:45am/Monday
-TA Ted looks at proxcard log and discovers that Sam was in CSAIL. Ted tells Professor Pam who files a compliant with the CoD.
-CoD hearings are not criminal proceedings.
-CoD hearing calls Sam to explain and presents a complaint (machine-readable) citing entry in prox card log as evidence that  she lied about matters of academic significance.
-Sam's advocate challenges the complaint because the offense cannot be proven without the use of prox card data and may not, according to the rule, be proven with the use of prox card data.
-Complaint is analyzed by the REI+ reasoner with the following result:
	-"reasoning result": accusation of lying by the CoD against Sam cannot be supported by the available facts.
	-"explanation" offered by reasoner:
		-argument in complaint is invalid because
			-accusation is of lying
			-lying accusation is supported by prox card data
			-prox card data may only justify an adverse consequence in a criminal investigation.


we can add:
-next other rules about how to use data in a criminal investigation: ie. a subpoena)
-requirement that anyone using proxcard data for any purpose must inform the data subject.
-prox card data could be exculpatory, how would the rule apply? (reasoning: investigation not criminal but consequence is not 'adverse', so reasoner should approve use.)
-