{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A019__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Environmental public health investigation","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement presents the consequential claim, evidentiary limitations, dependencies, and meaningful conflicts without proposing any corrective action or naming the archetype.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Hospital coding, portable pollution sensors, and resident interviews address different parts of the emissions claim and have distinct weaknesses."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Several ostensibly separate reports reuse the same clinic records, university analysis, or earlier wording."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Differences among sensor, clinical, and interview findings point toward seasonal limits, coding effects, and indoor household factors."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Officials describe causation as conclusively established even though no individual source supports that certainty."}],"scenario_text":"A county health department must decide whether emissions from a plastics plant are causing a reported rise in childhood asthma. Its briefing cites emergency-department records, portable air monitors placed near three schools, and interviews conducted by pediatric nurses. The records capture severe episodes but depend on changing diagnostic codes; the monitors measure short outdoor intervals and are sensitive to humidity; the interviews include household exposures that instruments cannot see. Several apparently separate confirmations are less distinct than they appear: a university paper imported the county’s clinic extract, a neighborhood report cites that paper’s tables, and two physicians’ statements repeat the neighborhood report’s conclusion.\n\nThe results also pull in different directions. Monitor peaks occur mainly during temperature inversions, recorded attacks remain elevated throughout the year, and interviews concentrate many cases in homes reporting visible mold. Those differences could mark a seasonal limit on the plant explanation, a coding effect, or an important indoor circumstance. Nevertheless, the department’s public notice says the plant has been conclusively established as the cause, a level of certainty unsupported by the records, monitors, or interviews considered alone.","scenario_title":"The County Asthma Finding","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The direct case uses clinical, air-monitoring, household-exposure, and county-government vocabulary; it is distinct from the maritime engineering and accident-forensics vocabulary of the transfer cases."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A019__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Maritime casualty investigation","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no recommendation, intervention, or solution description; it only specifies the disputed finding and the structure of the underlying material.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Radar replay, machinery logs, fracture examination, and crew recollections cover distinct features of the collision and are vulnerable to different errors."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Nominally separate technical accounts inherit the same vendor-decoded log and copied chronology."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Conflicts among radar visibility, propulsion timing, damage evidence, and testimony reveal possible weather, clock, and pre-impact-history qualifications."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The insurer calls the software explanation definitive although each individual form of material remains equivocal."}],"scenario_text":"After a container ship strikes a harbor crane, its insurer declares that the vessel’s navigation software caused the collision. The casualty file contains a shore-radar replay, propulsion-controller logs, laboratory examination of a fractured steering component, and recollections from the bridge crew. Radar can show relative movement but loses detail in heavy rain; controller logs record commands rather than the rudder’s physical response; fracture surfaces preserve mechanical history but not command intent; and crew memories were collected days later.\n\nThe apparent number of technical confirmations is inflated. Two consultancy reports rely on the same log decoded by the software vendor, while a trade-journal account reproduces the first consultant’s chronology without reviewing the underlying files. The remaining material does not align neatly: radar places the crane in rain clutter until late in the approach, the machinery clock is ninety seconds ahead of harbor time, and the damaged component shows a crack that may predate impact. Crew accounts also differ about when manual steering began. These discrepancies bear on weather limits, clock alignment, and earlier mechanical damage. Even so, the insurer describes software fault as the definitive explanation, although no single item establishes that conclusion.","scenario_title":"Definitive Cause at Harbor Berth 6","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The case is framed through navigation systems, harbor radar, machinery timing, fracture surfaces, and casualty reports, with no reuse of the direct case’s medical or pollution vocabulary and no archetype label."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A019__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Maritime casualty investigation","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b034_a08_c4","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports an irreversible limitation of the existing record but does not suggest how to change the investigation, recover material, or resolve the claim.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Sonar, engine telemetry, hull inspection, and witness recollection concern different features and retain method-specific vulnerabilities."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Three outwardly separate assessments use one contractor-normalized telemetry file, and later accounts copy an earlier timeline."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c4","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The retained record contains only a consensus sequence; conflicting observations, original timestamps, and method identifiers were permanently discarded, so disagreement cannot expose qualifications, distortions, incompatible facts, or circumstances."},{"condition_id":"b034_a08_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The port authority calls sabotage certain despite the inability of any single surviving source to establish it."}],"scenario_text":"A port authority concludes that deliberate engine-room sabotage caused a ferry to ground outside the breakwater. The case file originally drew on seabed sonar, engine-control telemetry, a dry-dock hull inspection, and passenger and crew recollections. These materials concern different features of the event and have different weaknesses: sonar resolution declines near rock faces, telemetry records electronic states rather than physical motion, impact damage can obscure earlier defects, and recollections shift after a frightening evacuation.\n\nThree outwardly separate engineering assessments nevertheless use the same contractor-normalized telemetry file. A maritime newsletter and a union memorandum also repeat the first assessment’s event sequence rather than examining source records. Before investigators received the file, the contractor converted every input into one consensus chronology, discarded original timestamps and method identifiers, and classified conflicting observations as invalid. The discarded material is unrecoverable. Consequently, any disagreement that once existed cannot now reveal an operating limit, an analyst distortion, incompatible facts, or an overlooked circumstance; the retained record permits no such inference. Despite that constraint, the authority’s final announcement calls sabotage certain. Sonar, normalized telemetry, hull damage, and recollections considered separately would each leave substantial doubt.","scenario_title":"The Ferry Sabotage Finding","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss preserves the transfer case’s maritime-forensics difficulty and terminology while explicitly negating only the informative role of disagreement; it does not use the archetype name or abstract benchmark labels."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A019","schema_version":1}