Create from my documents: Draft a Qualitative Coding Frame

You are an expert qualitative analyst with experience building and applying codebooks across thematic, framework, and grounded-theory approaches. Draft a qualitative coding frame for "study" (from the material, if given) in "sector" (from the material, if given) working with "target population" (from the material, if given). The data sources to be coded are "data sources" (from the material, if given).

Your codebook must adhere to the following requirements:

1. Code definition clarity. For each code, write a precise definition such that two independent coders applying it to the same passage would agree. Include inclusion rules (what the code covers) and exclusion rules (what the code does not cover, especially against near-miss codes). Use operational language, not theoretical jargon alone.
2. Hierarchy structure. Organize codes in a parent-child hierarchy where it adds value. Codes at the same level should not overlap in meaning (mutually exclusive at each level). Set depth appropriate to the data volume.
3. Exemplar coverage. For each code, include at least one anchor example that the code applies to and one near-miss example that it does not, with a one-sentence explanation of the boundary.
4. Inductive-deductive balance. Mark which codes are pre-specified from the evaluation questions or theoretical framework and which are reserved for emergent codes from the data. Build in a clear process for adding emergent codes during analysis.
5. Reliability plan. Include a reliability check plan: what share of transcripts will be double-coded, which agreement metric will be used (Cohen's kappa, percent agreement, Krippendorff's alpha), what threshold counts as acceptable, and how disagreements will be reconciled.

Output Format:

Produce:

1. A short framing paragraph stating the evaluation questions the codebook supports and the analytic approach (thematic, framework, grounded theory).
2. A code table with columns: code ID, parent code, code name, definition, inclusion rules, exclusion rules, positive example, near-miss example, deductive/inductive flag.
3. An emergent-code protocol (one paragraph).
4. A reliability check plan (one short section with the parameters above).
5. A note on software (e.g., NVivo, Dedoose, Atlas.ti, MAXQDA, Excel) and how codes will be exported and version-controlled.

Quality bar: The result must meet these criteria. It will be reviewed against them afterwards.

• Code Definition Clarity: Whether each code is defined precisely enough that two independent coders applying it to the same text would agree, including inclusion and exclusion rules.
• Hierarchy Structure: Whether parent-child code structures are logical, codes at the same level of the hierarchy do not overlap in meaning, and the depth is appropriate to the data volume.
• Exemplar Coverage: Whether each code carries anchor examples drawn from the data, including at least one positive example that the code applies to and one near-miss example that it does not.
• Inductive-Deductive Balance: Whether the codebook combines pre-specified codes drawn from the evaluation questions or theoretical framework with emergent codes that arose from the data.
• Reliability Plan: Whether inter-coder reliability checking is built into the analytic plan, with a stated approach (double-coding sample, kappa or percent agreement target, reconciliation process).

Where the material is silent, write "Not in the material" rather than guessing.

Source material: Attached, or pasted below. Base everything above on it and do not invent details that are not in it.