{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A012__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"State-government procurement appeals","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports ambiguity and consequences without suggesting a corrective action, design, or intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b015_a05_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Exported entries contain context-sensitive terms including “Approved,” “you,” “current,” “this,” and “closed.”"},{"condition_id":"b015_a05_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Meaning changes with procurement role, delegated authority, workflow stage, and state jurisdiction."}],"scenario_text":"A state procurement office is defending a protested software award using an exported case history assembled from email, chat, and its purchasing portal. Several decisive entries read only “Approved,” “owner: you,” “use current vendor,” and “this can be closed.” Inside the original portal, staff could see which requisition was open, which employee occupied each assignment, and whether approval came from the agency buyer, legal counsel, or the statewide purchasing authority. The appeal file strips away those screens and combines activity from two states with different delegation rules. It also includes comments written before and after the requisition changed stages. Reviewers now disagree about whether the approval covered the vendor selection, the contract language, or merely permission to begin negotiations. They also cannot determine which individual inherited “owner” when the assigned buyer transferred divisions. The disputed phrases appear authentic, but their force changes depending on role, authority, jurisdiction, and the workflow state visible when each entry was created.","scenario_title":"Procurement History in a Vendor-Award Appeal","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The direct case uses administrative records, delegated authority, requisitions, and interstate procurement rules; it avoids theatrical cueing vocabulary used by the transfer cases."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A012__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Touring theatrical automation and effects control","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes the operational uncertainty and safety impact without proposing any procedural or technical remedy.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b015_a05_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Recorded calls use “this,” “now,” “next,” and “live” to identify effects, timing, and equipment."},{"condition_id":"b015_a05_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Interpretation depends on the loaded show-file revision, selected cue stack, headset channel, venue position, and caller role."}],"scenario_text":"A touring arena production is investigating why a moving platform entered while a performer was crossing its track. The retained headset recording contains the calls “stand by this,” “take it now,” and “the next unit is live.” During the performance, those phrases were heard on separate crew channels while operators viewed different cue stacks. The automation desk had loaded the afternoon revision of the show file, but the effects desk was running the evening revision, in which two cue numbers had been reordered. A channel-routing change also placed the deputy stage manager’s voice on a feed normally reserved for the principal caller. After the recording was exported as one audio sequence, listeners could no longer tell which console display, stage position, equipment group, or revision accompanied each call. Some crew members believe “next unit” meant the following platform in the automation list; others remember it as the pyrotechnic rack awaiting clearance. The same words support materially different event timelines depending on the active file, channel, selection, and speaker responsibility.","scenario_title":"Detached Cue Calls After an Arena Incident","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case shifts to arena performance operations, headset traffic, cue stacks, consoles, and moving scenery, with surface language substantially unlike the procurement case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A012__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Touring theatrical automation and effects control","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b015_a05_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains only diagnostic facts and explicit negative evidence; it offers no recommendation or intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b015_a05_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Every logged command consists of a fixed cue identifier, an absolute timecode, and a named console; the scenario expressly excludes relative timing, pronouns directed at operators, status shorthand, and location shorthand."},{"condition_id":"b015_a05_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The operational meaning of cue Q47 depends on which signed show-file revision was loaded, despite the command’s absolute wording."}],"scenario_text":"A touring arena production is investigating why a moving platform entered while a performer was crossing its track. The control log records a single command: “Execute cue Q47 at 21:36:18.420 on Automation Console A.” Every command in the retained log follows that fixed format: a cue identifier, an absolute timecode, and a specifically named console. No entry relies on relative timing, operator-directed pronouns, status shorthand, or location shorthand. The uncertainty instead comes from the show file loaded at the console. In the signed afternoon revision, Q47 drives the platform along the crossing track; in the signed evening revision, Q47 raises an overhead lighting truss after the cue list was renumbered. Both revisions were distributed under the same production title, and the console’s exported event log identifies neither revision hash. Witnesses disagree about which package finished loading after a brief controller restart. Thus, the command’s wording identifies its target and time precisely, while its physical consequence still turns on the active version of the production file.","scenario_title":"Absolute Cue Command with an Uncertain Show File","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss deliberately retains the transfer domain, incident severity, revision conflict, and technical density while replacing the transfer case’s relative spoken calls with fully absolute command wording."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A012","schema_version":1}