At least from my understanding the outcome of the scenario is "being late", the second premise regarding Kumar cited the necessary condition which is the +5, so the possibility of "being late" is a possible outcome, but now it requires the sufficient condition as well in order to trigger that outcome which it was devoid of, therefore Kumar was not cited as late.

#feedback

So in this scenario, the outcome is a polysemy. Firstly, the outcome is represented as the result of the entire scenario. Secondly, it can appear to represent the necessary condition for the scenario to even exist, depending on how it's framed.

The necessary condition is what the outcome is dependent on, while the sufficient condition is an optional trigger for the outcome to occur. However, the necessary condition isn't always the outcome itself—for example, in situations where there are multiple necessary conditions for a scenario's outcome to occur.

If you water a plant, it will grow. Plants require both water and sunlight. In this case, the outcome of the plant growing isn't a necessary condition for the scenario to occur; it's the result. But let’s say the plant, for whatever reason, didn’t grow despite having the necessary conditions. Wouldn’t the outcome then also become a necessary condition because the scenario wouldn’t feel complete without the plant actually growing?

I may be confusing myself with imaginative what if scenarios of the outcome, but what would the resulting rule be in a situation like this, just stick within the argument itself rather than relying on outside what ifs?