The text definition of Art. 92 is:
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
In a legal sense, this translates in meaning to having been given an order, or knowing that an order has been given in regards to a situation or job role, an individual has a) disregarded those instructions or b) has gone about their job in a fashion that disregards the normal standards to which they are accountable. So in this an Article 92 offense can be either a case of a deliberate action or a case of negligence (which is often defined as actions taken without intention to commit a crime, but in disregard of standards and their legal consequences which one can reasonably be expected to know and understand).
For a willful disobedience of an order, this would mean deliberately ignoring or disregarding issued orders from NCOs, Warrant, or Commissioned officers in regards to lawful duty, both in specific and general authority roles. For Neglect, this would mean a soldier knows current standards and expectations that are a part of their job, and for whatever reason, disregards them.
This correlates with my conduct, in that I had instructions to create a bubble diagram of the insurgent groups in the Baghdad AO. I was also told that a specific group was one group and not actually multiple groups. I disagreed and conducted unnecessary and (later shown) inaccurate research that I believed showed two different groups. The article 92 portion of this came from the fact that a) I was told they were one group and b) there was a close of business suspense that my actions caused me to miss