In reference to property loss, which of the following is NOT a reason for a mandatory investigation?

The rationale behind the selection of the correct answer revolves around the criteria that typically warrant a mandatory investigation for property loss. In this context, property marked for disposal does not trigger a mandatory investigation because such property is already slated for removal from accountability systems due to its designated status. This implies that the normal concerns associated with property accountability, such as loss or damage, are less relevant when dealing with items set for disposal.

On the other hand, involvement of public funds, negligence, and significant value of loss are factors that typically necessitate an investigation. Public funds are a concern as any losses in this area could have serious implications for accountability and financial management. Negligence signifies a potential failure in duty or responsibility regarding property management, which also calls for further scrutiny. Additionally, significant loss in value raises alarms about possible systemic issues or mismanagement that need to be addressed. Thus, the selection reflects an understanding of the circumstances under which an investigation is deemed necessary according to property accountability policies.