{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A026__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Museum conservation and artwork authentication","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The problem statement reports the evidentiary confusion and its consequences without proposing a method, intervention, or corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The conservator, curator, registrar, and insurer assign the sheen claim to different statuses: personal visual experience, documented observation, inference about treatment, institutional record, and actual physical history."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The chair explicitly treats visible sheen as conclusive proof of recent varnishing, merges distinct evidence types, and authorizes consequential decisions with unwarranted certainty."}],"scenario_text":"A regional museum is deciding whether a newly acquired portrait was heavily varnished during a recent restoration. Under raking light, the conservator notices a glassy sheen and records it in her examination notes. She regards the note as her visual experience under particular lighting. The curator calls it a repeatable surface observation. The registrar treats the same sentence as part of the museum’s official condition record, while the insurer reads it as evidence that an undocumented restoration actually occurred. A skeptical board member says the sheen supports only an inference because aging oil, wax, and photographic glare could look similar.\n\nDuring the acquisition meeting, the committee chair ends the dispute by declaring that a visible sheen conclusively proves recent varnishing. Subsequent documents mingle what was seen, what the museum recorded, and what happened to the object as though they were interchangeable facts. The museum lowers the portrait’s valuation, alleges nondisclosure by the seller, and postpones exhibition, although the committee cannot state which evidence supports which conclusion or how certain any underlying event is.","scenario_title":"The Glassy Sheen in the Acquisition File","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This direct case uses conservation, authentication, insurance, provenance, and collection-record vocabulary; it is distinct from the distributed-service operations domain used by the transfer case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A026__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Distributed cloud-service incident management","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains only the operational problem and resulting decisions; it offers no diagnostic procedure, recommendation, or remedy.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Responders dispute whether the green console tile represents an engineer's screen experience, a system observation, an inference from partial signals, an official service state, or actual availability."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The incident commander resolves the dispute by explicitly declaring the green display conclusive evidence of real availability, leading to mixed evidence and overconfident operational decisions."}],"scenario_text":"A payment platform experiences intermittent checkout failures during a major sale. Its operations console continues to show the authorization service as green. The on-call engineer says only that she sees a green tile on her screen. A site-reliability lead treats the tile as an observation emitted by the monitoring stack. The service owner says it is an inference assembled from a subset of regional signals, while the incident coordinator treats green as the company’s official declaration that the service is available. A developer argues that none of those meanings alone establishes whether requests are actually completing for merchants.\n\nThe incident commander closes the debate by ruling that a green console state proves the service itself is healthy. The response log subsequently combines screen captures, monitoring outputs, corporate status, and real request completion under the single heading “available.” On that basis, the team cancels a vendor escalation, tells support that failures are confined to customer devices, and keeps promotional traffic running. When losses rise, the record cannot show which conclusions came from displayed state, which were inferred, and which described the platform’s actual behavior.","scenario_title":"Green During the Checkout Failures","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case replaces the direct case's museum and object-history vocabulary with cloud operations, monitoring, regional signals, merchant requests, and incident-response decisions."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"There is no first-person report opposed to an externally standardized measurement; the case concerns a console state and its evidentiary force, with no specified cross-channel divergence."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"The move from the green display to actual service health is made through an express command ruling, not through an unnoticed change in wording."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"HR4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The displayed state is elevated to proof rather than rejected for lacking objective standing."}],"case_id":"E14A026__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Distributed cloud-service incident management","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement identifies the failed reasoning and operational fallout without suggesting how the organization should respond or improve its process.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a05_av_t1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The scenario expressly says every participant agrees that the green tile is only a displayed interface state and that no one assigns it a different claim status."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Although claim status is unanimous, participants dispute the displayed state's decision weight; the commander settles that dispute by upgrading the display to proof, confusing evidence and enabling overconfident actions."}],"scenario_text":"A payment platform experiences intermittent checkout failures during a major sale while its operations console remains green. Everyone in the incident room agrees about what the tile is: a displayed interface state generated from selected regional signals. The on-call engineer, service owner, incident coordinator, and developer all explicitly reject calling it a direct account of whether merchant requests are actually completing. No participant treats it as a personal experience report, an official declaration, or a fact about the service’s underlying condition.\n\nThey nevertheless disagree about how much weight the agreed-upon display state should carry when choosing operational actions. The incident commander settles that dispute with an explicit order: for this incident, green will count as proof that the authorization service is healthy. The response log then combines screenshots, inferred regional health, and real request completion under the single heading “available.” The team cancels a vendor escalation, attributes failures to customer devices, and leaves promotional traffic running. As losses increase, its confident decisions rest on evidence whose agreed status was clear but whose significance was deliberately inflated.","scenario_title":"Agreement About the Green Tile","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss retains the transfer case's cloud-service setting, operational stakes, technical density, and display-state vocabulary while changing only the presence of disagreement about claim status."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A026","schema_version":1}