Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Appellant's App. at 70. An "x" is handwritten into the blank next to "written," followed by a second "x" to indicate that Brooks had shown a "disregard for safety." Id. These lines are followed by the narrative recitation of the facts surrounding this safety violation. Id. Above the signature line, the form states that the signer had "received a full explanation of my failure to perform to the expected standards of the company" and that "further failure on my part will be due cause for disciplinary action." Id. As an initial stage in the disciplinary process, the corrective form is a subsequent remedial measure that may not be used to prove Strack's negligence or culpability in connection with Carter's injury. See Dukett v. Mausness, 546 N.E.2d 1292 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. denied (<HOLDING>). Our analysis does not end here, however, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake (B) holding that evidence of subsequent measures was admissible to show the feasibility of a design change (C) holding that evidence of other crimes though generally inadmissible to show character is admissible to show for instance proof of motive or plan (D) holding that postevent disciplinary measures are not admissible to show negligence or culpability (E) holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action
Output (English): holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake