{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A025__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"community irrigation agriculture","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports operating conditions and consequences without proposing corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b003_a03_aec_t2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Growers' long-lasting berms, gates, and channels determine the water access and viable crops of subsequent growers."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The authority assumes the physical water network is stable and neither records nor governs cumulative farmer-made changes."}],"scenario_text":"Along a century-old irrigation district, growers routinely deepen field cuts, add small gates, reinforce berms, and redirect overflow channels to protect their own harvests. Many alterations remain for years after a lease changes hands. New tenants consequently inherit plots where water arrives at different times, certain crops are no longer viable, and access depends on paths established by previous occupants. These inherited features also influence which farms can withstand dry seasons and which operators can afford to remain. The district authority nevertheless maintains a static map of the original canal design and evaluates uneven yields mainly as differences in farmer skill, effort, or crop choice. Field modifications below the main-gate level are rarely recorded, and no office is responsible for examining how their accumulation changes future farming possibilities. Disputes are handled as isolated conflicts between current neighbors, even when the contested flow pattern was created by people who left years earlier.","scenario_title":"The Inherited Water Paths","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses agricultural infrastructure, tenancy, water timing, and crop viability vocabulary rather than digital-platform terminology."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A025__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"open-source game modification ecosystem","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement identifies the technical and administrative problem but contains no intervention or recommendation.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b003_a03_aec_t2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Creators leave persistent plug-ins, dependencies, formats, and conventions that constrain what later creators can build and maintain."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Platform staff regard the toolchain as neutral background infrastructure and do not oversee its cumulative evolution."}],"scenario_text":"A popular game supports thousands of community-made extensions. Early creators published shared plug-ins, data formats, and packaging conventions that newer projects now depend on. As those choices accumulate, incoming creators find that some ideas are easy to implement while others require replacing layers of inherited code. Compatibility with dominant plug-ins strongly affects whether a new extension is discovered, maintained, or abandoned, and departing maintainers can leave constraints that persist across several release cycles. Platform staff still describe the toolchain as neutral background infrastructure. Their reviews concentrate on each creator's coding quality, conduct, and release discipline, while dependency patterns and community-established conventions are treated as external facts. No team tracks how creators' technical choices reshape the starting conditions faced by the next cohort or how platform compatibility decisions amplify those choices. Recent releases therefore arrive in an ecosystem whose practical boundaries were largely built by earlier contributors, although official reports continue to analyze outcomes at the individual-project level.","scenario_title":"The Toolchain New Creators Inherit","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses software dependencies, plug-ins, release cycles, and maintainership language, substantially separated from the direct case's farming vocabulary."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b003_a03_aec_t1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The case explicitly states that no recurring contributor-correction campaign has failed because older incentives restored prior conduct."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"HR1","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"Administrators explicitly monitor and govern the continuing interaction between contributor choices and the shared technical setting."}],"case_id":"E14A025__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"open-source game modification ecosystem","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":"HR1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes governance already present as factual negative evidence; it does not advise any action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b003_a03_aec_t2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Contributor-built libraries, formats, and packaging conventions persist and delimit later creators' feasible work."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Administrators formally recognize, measure, and govern how contributor decisions alter later technical conditions."}],"scenario_text":"A popular game supports thousands of community-made extensions. Creators publish shared libraries, data formats, and packaging conventions that remain in use long after their original authors depart. New projects inherit these dependencies: certain concepts become cheap to build, others become impractical, and compatibility with widely adopted components affects which extensions attract maintainers. The resulting technical landscape still bears the cumulative imprint of earlier contributors. Unlike a platform that regards this landscape as fixed, however, the administrators formally treat contributor decisions as changes to the operating setting for later creators. A standing review group maps dependency concentration, records shifts in common formats, evaluates how compatibility rules redirect subsequent development, and has authority over cumulative risks and cross-project effects. Its release records explicitly connect earlier community choices with later entry and maintenance patterns. The current concern is a newly emerging cluster of mutually incompatible libraries, not an unrecognized persistence mechanism. Nor has there been a recurring campaign to correct individual creator conduct that repeatedly collapsed because established incentives restored the old behavior.","scenario_title":"Governed Dependencies, Emerging Fragmentation","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Retains the transfer case's software-ecosystem vocabulary and comparable dependency complexity while changing only the explicit governance status required by the frozen omission."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A025","schema_version":1}