{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A016__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Hospital management and promotion analytics","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement presents the evidentiary problem and pending decision without proposing corrective action or naming a diagnostic pattern.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each candidate's communication, judgment, empathy, and operational discipline scores come from one manager using one form during one review cycle."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The promotion committee relies on correlations, clustering, and resulting candidate rankings to support its leadership-profile claim."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Managers knew the favored candidates, saw all traits together, and submitted ratings amid the same reorganization and staffing crisis."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The dashboard and committee favor a concise multi-trait narrative before establishing whether any trait has separate evidentiary support."}],"scenario_text":"Northbridge Health is selecting twelve department heads for a new regional structure. For every candidate, the person’s current manager scores communication, judgment, empathy, and operational discipline on adjacent scales in a single quarterly review form. The promotion dashboard reports strong correlations among all four scores, groups candidates into three leadership profiles, and ranks one profile as the clearest predictor of readiness. Executives are treating the agreement among traits as several mutually reinforcing signs that the highest-ranked candidates possess a coherent leadership capability.\n\nThe ratings were completed during the same two-week reorganization, when managers were managing severe staffing shortages. Managers had already seen the provisional promotion slate, and the form displayed every trait on one screen with identical anchors. Several managers rarely distinguish among the four scales in their written comments. Nonetheless, the committee prefers the dashboard’s compact account because it makes the shortlist easy to defend. No one has established whether communication, judgment, empathy, and discipline were supported by observations originating outside the manager’s single review submission.","scenario_title":"The unusually coherent leadership shortlist","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This direct case uses personnel reviews, managerial ratings, promotion profiles, and executive shortlisting; the transfer case uses chemical assays, chromatograms, processing lots, and supplier screening."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A016__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Imported-oil authenticity testing","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports the laboratory and commercial inference at issue but offers no procedural change, analytical correction, or intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"All chemical indicators are obtained from the same prepared vial, autosampler run, instrument, processing template, and laboratory lot."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Covariance, clustering, and a composite supplier ranking underpin the asserted degradation signature and purchasing decisions."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Aging reference solution, detector drift, warming samples, and one baseline-correction template could move many reported peaks together."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The commercial workflow favors a simple chemical signature while treating co-moving measurements as corroboration without separate origins."}],"scenario_text":"A specialty-food importer screens olive-oil suppliers by measuring six chemical indicators associated with oxidation, adulteration, and storage damage. For each shipment, one prepared vial passes through the laboratory’s autosampler, and a single chromatograph and processing template produce all six reported values. Analysts found that the indicators move together strongly, form a stable cluster, and yield a composite score that places four suppliers at the bottom of the purchasing list. Management interprets this alignment as multiple chemical signs of one underlying degradation process and is preparing to suspend those suppliers.\n\nThe strongest pattern appeared in a month when every sample was processed with the same aging reference solution. Instrument logs also show gradual detector drift across each day, while vials warmed in the autosampler queue. The software applied one baseline-correction model to every peak, including several near its detection threshold. Because the resulting supplier order is simple and commercially actionable, the quality report emphasizes the unified chemical signature. It counts the six co-moving indicators as convergent support without establishing that their movements arose through separate analytical paths.","scenario_title":"Six chemical signals and one supplier ranking","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer setting is materially removed from employee assessment: it concerns laboratory chemistry, instrument output, sample handling, peak processing, and procurement rankings."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A016__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Cross-institution coastal restoration evaluation","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b062_a07_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains explicit negative evidence about provenance but does not recommend a remedy or identify a named diagnostic approach.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The four indicators were collected by unrelated institutions using different personnel, instruments, software, regions, years, funding, and oversight, before the consortium existed."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Cross-site convergence, clustering, and rankings are central to the claim that one restoration model reliably produces recovery."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A widely promoted success narrative plausibly shaped independent teams' treatment of borderline observations in the same favorable direction."},{"condition_id":"b062_a07_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The consortium rewards a concise success story and treats convergent indicators as mutually reinforcing before examining their evidentiary histories."}],"scenario_text":"A newly formed coastal consortium has combined four indicators of wetland recovery: bird nesting success from a university field team, sediment retention from a private engineering survey, vegetation cover from a conservation charity’s drone archive, and juvenile-fish abundance from a government tagging program. Sites scoring well on one indicator generally score well on the others, creating a tight cluster of apparent successes. The consortium uses that convergence to rank restoration models and argues that the leading model produces broad ecological recovery rather than isolated gains.\n\nThe four datasets do not share collectors, instruments, software, contractors, regions, sampling years, funding streams, or supervisory chains. Each was completed before the consortium existed, and none reused another group’s records or classifications. However, every team had encountered the same heavily publicized account that a particular restoration model was successful. Field notes reveal that borderline nests, ambiguous vegetation patches, uncertain sediment boundaries, and questionable fish recaptures were often coded favorably when that model was present. The consortium’s report prizes the concise recovery narrative and treats agreement across indicators as reinforcing evidence before discussing those separate classification histories.","scenario_title":"Independent archives with a persuasive recovery pattern","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss retains a technically demanding multi-indicator inference but explicitly separates every collection path; its ecological fieldwork vocabulary remains distinct from the direct personnel case and the transfer laboratory case."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A016","schema_version":1}