Back in 1999 Dubna make the inital claim of discovery for element 114 with the following decay chain 30.4 s (9.71 MeV alpha)->15.4 m (8.67 MeV alpha)->1.6 m (8.83 MeV alpha)->16.5 m (fission). This chain as initially attributed to 289
114 at its decendants, but further experiements detemined that assignment to be in error. A LLNL report https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/302186.pdf
which analyed the 248
Ca,4n) experiment in 2000 also found a decay chain (SF event 2 in the paper) which is very similar to the original 1999 chain. Note that all chains in the paper assigned to 288
114 have since been re-assigned ot 289
Assuming these two decay chains are real, the question is what do they belong to? Dubna suggested 290
114, however, viability of the 2n channel aside, I have problems with this assignment as it gives a rather long SF half-life to the termination Even-Even nuclide 278
Hs. N=170 is now known to be a location of low fission barrier in between the N=162 deformed shell and the N=184 spherical shell enclosure. The 820 microsecond 282
112 confirms this.
Another possibility floated is these nuclides all being isomers. However with all
lifetimes of those two chains somewhat longer with somewhat less alpha energy than the 289
114 and decendant ground states, the possibility of three successive isomers in a decay chain all with longer lifetimes and slightly lower alpha energy is highly unlikely.
There is one possible solution I can think of: 289
114 has a small EC branch and the alphas observed are from 289
113 and decendants. The chain terminates at 277
Bh (straight SF with no EC in between as this nucleus is expected to be beta-stable or very close to it.). Note that 289
113 itself may have a significant EC branch. However it may EC all the way to a nucleus with a lifetime too long to be detected via SF/alpha in the experiment. So any 289
114>EC>EC chains would not be picked up.