[
  {
    "notice": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "notice1": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "notice2": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "title": "这里填标题，必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填",
    "titleTranslate": "这里填标题翻译",
    "text": "这里填原文，一句一个换行符，一段两个换行符，必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填",
    "textTranslate": "这里填原文翻译，一句一个换行符，一段两个换行符",
    "audioSrc": "这里填音频的url/在线地址"
  },
  {
    "title": "How are you today?",
    "titleTranslate": "今天好吗？",
    "text": "STEVEN:Hello, HELEN.\n\nHELEN:Hi, Steven.\n\nSTEVEN:How are you today?\n\nHELEN:I'm very well, thank you. And you?\n\nSTEVEN:I'm fine, thanks.\n\nSTEVEN:How is Tony?\n\nHELEN:He's fine, thanks. How's Emma?\n\nSTEVEN:She's very well, too, Helen.\n\nSTEVEN:Goodbye, Helen.Nice to see you.\n\nHELEN:Nice to see you, too, Steven. Goodbye.",
    "textTranslate": "史蒂文：你好，海伦 \n\n海 伦：你好，史蒂文 \n\n史蒂文：你今天好吗？ \n\n海 伦：很好，谢谢你。你好吗？ \n\n史蒂文：很好，谢谢。 \n\n史蒂文：托尼好吗？ \n\n海 伦：他很好，谢谢。埃玛好吗？ \n\n史蒂文：她也很好，海伦。 \n\n史蒂文：再见，海伦。见到你真高兴。 \n\n海 伦：我见到你也很高兴，史蒂文。再见。",
    "audioSrc": "/sound/article/nce1/009&010－How Are You Today.mp3"
  },
  {
    "title": "14A Following the Evidence to a Cause",
    "titleTranslate": "第14课A｜分析原因并解释结果",
    "text": "Once a problem can be reproduced, I look for evidence that distinguishes possible causes instead of trying unrelated changes at random.\nIn the empty menu example, the browser showed a failed request, so the next useful question concerned the response from the server.\nWe compared the request with the expected endpoint and discovered that the application was using an incorrect configuration value.\nThat observation suggested a cause, but we still needed to check whether correcting the value restored the expected data and visible options.\nAfter the correction, the request succeeded and the menu displayed the topics that were already stored in the database.\nWe then repeated the original steps with another lesson to see whether the same explanation fit more than one example.\nThis sequence connected the visible problem, the underlying request, the incorrect value, and the result of the specific change.\nIt also helped us avoid a misleading explanation in which refreshing the page appeared to be the entire solution.\nA cause should explain the evidence and predict what will change when the relevant condition is corrected or removed.\nThe clearer that connection becomes, the easier it is to describe the fix and decide which related behavior still needs attention.",
    "textTranslate": "问题能复现后，我寻找区分可能原因的证据，不随机尝试无关修改。\n空菜单例子中浏览器请求失败，因此下一问题是服务器返回什么。\n我们比较请求与预期端点，发现应用使用错误配置值。\n观察提示原因，但仍需检查修正值能否恢复数据及可见选项。\n修正后，请求成功，菜单显示数据库已存主题。\n再用另一课重复原步骤，查看解释是否不只适用于单例。\n这个过程连接可见问题、底层请求、错误值和具体修改结果。\n也避免误以为刷新页面就是完整解决方案。\n原因应解释证据，并预测相关条件纠正或移除后什么会改变。\n联系越清楚，越容易解释修复并决定还需关注哪些相关行为。"
  },
  {
    "title": "14B Explaining a Fix Without Overstating It",
    "titleTranslate": "第14课B｜分析原因并解释结果",
    "text": "After fixing a problem, I want the report to explain the trigger, the cause, the change, and the evidence that supports the conclusion.\nA short statement that everything works is not enough when only one page or one request has actually been observed.\nI describe what failed before the change and what now happens when the same sequence is repeated with the corrected configuration.\nIf another environment has not been checked, I say so rather than imply that a local result proves every remote deployment is correct.\nThis distinction makes the report more useful, because it shows the practical limits of the evidence without hiding the successful result.\nI also note any remaining uncertainty that could change the next decision, such as whether an old process is still using the previous settings.\nAn effective explanation uses because when there is a supported reason and words such as may when the connection is still uncertain.\nIf the same issue returns, the report should help us identify whether the original condition has returned or a different cause is involved.\nA careful report is therefore part of solving the problem, because it preserves the reasoning that would otherwise disappear after the immediate task.\nIt gives the next person a concrete starting point and reduces the chance of repeating a change without understanding why it helped.",
    "textTranslate": "修复后，我希望报告解释触发条件、原因、修改及支持结论的证据。\n只观察一个页面或请求时，仅说一切正常并不足够。\n我描述改前哪里失败，以及修正配置后重复相同步骤会怎样。\n未检查其他环境时，应明确说明，不暗示本地成功证明所有远端正常。\n这让报告更有用，既展现证据边界，也不掩盖成功结果。\n也记录影响下一决定的不确定性，例如旧进程是否仍用旧设置。\n有根据时用because说明原因，仍不确定时用may等词。\n若问题复发，报告应帮助判断原条件重现，还是另有原因。\n因此仔细报告也是解决问题的一部分，保留即时任务后可能遗失的推理。\n为下一人提供具体起点，减少不明原理地重复修改。"
  },
  {
    "title": "14C Working Conversation",
    "titleTranslate": "第14课C｜分析原因并解释结果",
    "text": "Me: We can reproduce the empty menu now; what evidence would help us distinguish a missing record from a request sent to the wrong endpoint?\nDeveloper: We should inspect the response and compare the configured address with the expected endpoint before modifying the menu component or database records.\nMe: If the configuration is wrong, can we change only that value and repeat the same steps to see whether the result changes?\nDeveloper: Yes; that will give us a focused comparison and help us explain whether the configuration caused this particular failure.\nMe: The request now succeeds and the topics appear; please also try another lesson so we know whether the same explanation applies there.\nDeveloper: Both examples work after the correction, but I have not yet checked the production environment or confirmed which settings its process uses.\nMe: Include that limit in the report, along with the original trigger, the corrected value's role, and the observations that support the fix.\nDeveloper: I will separate the confirmed local result from the remaining deployment check and explain exactly what the next verification needs to establish.",
    "textTranslate": "我：现在能复现空菜单，什么证据能区分缺记录与请求发错端点？\n开发者：先查响应并比较配置地址与预期端点，再改菜单组件或记录。\n我：若配置错了，能只改那个值再重复步骤，观察结果变化吗？\n开发者：可以，这能提供聚焦比较，并判断配置是否导致该故障。\n我：现在请求成功且主题出现，请试另一课，确认解释是否也适用。\n开发者：修正后两例正常，但尚未查生产环境及其进程所用设置。\n我：报告中写清限制、原触发条件、修正值的作用及支持修复的观察。\n开发者：会区分已确认本地结果和待查部署，并说明下一核对要证实什么。"
  },
  {
    "title": "14D Sentence Review",
    "titleTranslate": "第14课D｜分析原因并解释结果",
    "text": "Once a problem can be reproduced, I look for evidence that distinguishes possible causes instead of trying unrelated changes at random.\nWe compared the request with the expected endpoint and discovered that the application was using an incorrect configuration value.\nAfter the correction, the request succeeded and the menu displayed the topics that were already stored in the database.\nIt also helped us avoid a misleading explanation in which refreshing the page appeared to be the entire solution.\nAfter fixing a problem, I want the report to explain the trigger, the cause, the change, and the evidence that supports the conclusion.\nI describe what failed before the change and what now happens when the same sequence is repeated with the corrected configuration.\nI also note any remaining uncertainty that could change the next decision, such as whether an old process is still using the previous settings.\nA careful report is therefore part of solving the problem, because it preserves the reasoning that would otherwise disappear after the immediate task.\nWe can reproduce the empty menu now; what evidence would help us distinguish a missing record from a request sent to the wrong endpoint?\nIf the configuration is wrong, can we change only that value and repeat the same steps to see whether the result changes?\nThe request now succeeds and the topics appear; please also try another lesson so we know whether the same explanation applies there.\nInclude that limit in the report, along with the original trigger, the corrected value's role, and the observations that support the fix.",
    "textTranslate": "问题能复现后，我寻找区分可能原因的证据，不随机尝试无关修改。\n我们比较请求与预期端点，发现应用使用错误配置值。\n修正后，请求成功，菜单显示数据库已存主题。\n也避免误以为刷新页面就是完整解决方案。\n修复后，我希望报告解释触发条件、原因、修改及支持结论的证据。\n我描述改前哪里失败，以及修正配置后重复相同步骤会怎样。\n也记录影响下一决定的不确定性，例如旧进程是否仍用旧设置。\n因此仔细报告也是解决问题的一部分，保留即时任务后可能遗失的推理。\n我：现在能复现空菜单，什么证据能区分缺记录与请求发错端点？\n我：若配置错了，能只改那个值再重复步骤，观察结果变化吗？\n我：现在请求成功且主题出现，请试另一课，确认解释是否也适用。\n我：报告中写清限制、原触发条件、修正值的作用及支持修复的观察。"
  },
  {
    "title": "14E Vocabulary in Context",
    "titleTranslate": "第14课E｜分析原因并解释结果",
    "text": "We can optimize the query after understanding the evidence, rather than relying on a guess about which part is slow.\nThe research includes observations from several examples, and researching the difference may explain why only one environment fails.\nThe analysis detected an invalid value, and correcting that value resolves the failure in the reproduced example.\nThe evidence supports this explanation, but the data has not yet been verified against the original source.\nThe crawler follows public links, while a separate tool can scrape the text from the pages found during the crawl.\nSearch results can guide an investigation, but the highest ranking result is not automatically the most reliable source.\nThe log highlights repeated requests and counts how often the same endpoint returns an unexpected response.\nThe cache may explain the difference; if a cached response was served, the page might not reflect the latest record.\nThe finding seemed surprising, but a mirror of the original data confirmed that the same value existed before the change.\nThe investigation should stay focused on the observed failure while remaining open to another explanation if new evidence appears.",
    "textTranslate": "理解证据后可优化查询，不猜哪部分慢。\n研究含多个例子的观察，研究差异可能解释为何只一个环境失败。\n分析发现无效值，纠正后解决复现例中的故障。\n证据支持解释，但数据尚未与原来源核对。\n爬虫跟随公开链接，另一工具抓取爬行中找到的页面文字。\n搜索结果能引导调查，但排名最高不自动最可靠。\n日志突出重复请求，并统计端点返回异常响应次数。\n缓存可能解释差异，返回缓存响应时页面可能不反映最新记录。\n发现看着意外，但原数据镜像确认该值改前已存在。\n调查应聚焦已见故障，也准备在新证据出现时接受其他解释。"
  }
]