{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"No first-person account is compared with a standardized external measure, much less shown to diverge systematically."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"The evidentiary promotion occurs through an explicit committee vote, not through an unnoticed change in wording."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"HR4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The visible feature is elevated to conclusive reality rather than rejected for lacking objectivity."}],"case_id":"E14A026__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Hospital diagnostic review","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes the evidentiary confusion and resulting decisions without proposing corrective procedures or interventions.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Clinicians expressly dispute whether the crescent is a viewing impression, a scanner observation, a diagnostic inference, a chart fact, or an actual hemorrhage."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The chair settles the dispute by treating the visible crescent as direct proof, after which impressions, data, and diagnosis are merged and consequential decisions are made with unwarranted certainty."}],"scenario_text":"A regional hospital reviews the case of a patient who arrived dizzy after a minor fall. On one CT slice, a faint crescent seems visible near the skull. The radiologist calls it a perceptual impression that may reflect motion; the emergency physician treats it as an observed scanner feature; a neurologist says it supports, but does not establish, a diagnostic inference. The quality officer argues that once entered in the chart it becomes an official clinical fact, while the surgeon insists the only meaningful question is whether bleeding actually exists in the patient. To end the dispute, the review chair votes that any crescent visible to two clinicians counts as a confirmed hemorrhage. The record then combines pixel patterns, viewing impressions, and diagnosis under one certainty label. A transfer is canceled, anticoagulation is withheld, and administrators report a definite missed bleed in the monthly safety totals, even though no later finding establishes what produced the original shape.","scenario_title":"The Faint Crescent Review","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses clinical imaging, charting, diagnosis, transfer, and medication vocabulary, distinct from the art-market language of the transfer case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"The dispute does not involve a first-person report that systematically conflicts with a standardized measurement."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"The promotion is imposed openly by the sale director rather than smuggled in through appearance-qualified wording."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"HR4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"Surface cues are treated as decisive proof, not discarded because they are subjective."}],"case_id":"E14A026__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Fine-art auction and provenance assessment","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The narrative contains no recommendation, audit method, or proposed intervention; it ends with the consequences of the disputed classification.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The specialists disagree about whether aged-looking details are sensory impressions, documented features, historical inferences, catalog facts, or facts about the painting's true origin."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The director resolves the dispute by declaring the apparent age conclusive, merging several evidentiary levels and authorizing confident commercial decisions."}],"scenario_text":"An auction house is preparing a portrait whose ownership record begins in 1912. Under ultraviolet light, the varnish has an uneven glow, and the surface cracking looks consistent with considerable age. The conservator describes these as impressions formed while examining the object. A catalog assistant calls them recorded physical features. The house historian treats them as clues supporting an attribution, while the registrar says the published catalog entry will itself become the firm's official position. A prospective buyer argues that none of those categories answers whether the canvas was actually painted in seventeenth-century Antwerp. Faced with a deadline, the sale director rules that looking old under expert inspection is sufficient to establish the claimed origin. The estimate is tripled, the catalog presents the attribution as certain, and a lender accepts the work as collateral at that valuation. Staff later cite the glow, the written entry, and the historical conclusion interchangeably, leaving no clear account of what was seen, what was inferred, and what was merely made official by the house.","scenario_title":"The Antwerp Portrait Deadline","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case shifts to connoisseurship, provenance, cataloging, valuation, and collateral, with no clinical actors, imaging terminology, or patient-care decisions."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"There is no divergent pair consisting of a person's reported preference or experience and an external standardized result."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"The promotion of surface cues is an explicit, known business rule rather than a silent linguistic shift."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"HR4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The surface evidence is overcredited; it is not dismissed for failing to be objective."}],"case_id":"E14A026__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Fine-art auction and provenance assessment","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement supplies explicit negative evidence and harmful consequences but offers no remedy or corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Every participant explicitly agrees that the visible aging is only a surface impression and that the catalog designation is institutional rather than proof of true origin; the text states that nobody disputes these statuses."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Despite that consensus, the director's explicit classification rule promotes the surface impression to established origin, muddles the evidence record, and drives overconfident valuation and lending decisions."}],"scenario_text":"An auction house evaluates a devotional panel with darkened varnish, worm-like channels in the frame, and lettering that resembles an early workshop mark. Before the sale, every participant explicitly agrees about the standing of these details: the conservator's sense of age is a surface impression, the photographed channels are documented features, the proposed date is a historical inference, and any catalog attribution would be only the firm's official designation. They also agree that none of this establishes when or where the panel was actually made. No one disputes those distinctions. Nevertheless, the sale director applies a fixed commercial rule stating that three convincing signs of age establish authentic period origin. The file is rewritten as confirmed sixteenth-century work, with the photographs, expert reaction, attribution, and actual origin treated as equivalent support. The reserve price rises sharply, a buyer waives further review, and a finance company lends against the new valuation. Internal reports then describe the transaction as proof that the house's visual screening reliably identifies period works.","scenario_title":"Three Signs of Age","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss retains the transfer case's auction, conservation, attribution, pricing, and lending vocabulary while explicitly removing interpersonal disagreement over evidentiary status."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A026","schema_version":1}