{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A032__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Ethnographic study of spirit-mediumship","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports the interpretive conflict and source-based exclusion without proposing any corrective method or intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b025_a01_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The congregation's distinctions crosscut the research team's classifications: several local states enter one clinical class, while one local state spans several observer classes."},{"condition_id":"b025_a01_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The project director excludes congregant interviews solely because participants produced them, without identifying defects in their content."}],"scenario_text":"A university team is studying spirit-mediumship in a coastal congregation. Members distinguish being “called,” “carrying a visitor,” “speaking under debt,” and ordinary illness according to obligations, kin recognition, and ritual competence. The researchers classify recorded episodes as dissociation, rehearsed role performance, stress response, or strategic display. The schemes crosscut: several locally distinct states enter the same clinical class, while episodes called “carrying a visitor” receive different research codes depending on observable conduct. During preparation of the final report, the project director removes all congregant interviews from the evidentiary record. He does not identify inconsistencies, fabrication, or sampling defects; he says testimony produced by believers is inherently apologetic and therefore cannot count as knowledge about the events. Observer notes and laboratory ratings remain admissible solely because credentialed researchers produced them. The resulting report presents confident findings while omitting the terms by which experienced members distinguish episodes that the research classifications group together.","scenario_title":"Congregant Testimony Excluded from a Mediumship Study","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The case uses congregation, ritual, kinship, and clinical-study language; it does not reproduce supplied predicates or name the underlying interpretive pattern."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A032__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Railway signaling maintenance and reliability analytics","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes a documentation failure and its consequences without recommending a process, design, or remedy.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b025_a01_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Maintainers' fault distinctions and reliability engineers' event classes crosscut rather than translating uniquely in either direction."},{"condition_id":"b025_a01_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The analytics lead rejects depot-authored logs categorically because they come from maintainers, despite no finding that the records are inaccurate."}],"scenario_text":"A railway operator is reviewing intermittent signaling failures across three depots. Veteran maintainers record incidents as “sticky clear,” “ghost occupancy,” “wet-tail drift,” or “cab echo,” distinctions tied to test order, weather, and how equipment responds under load. Reliability engineers sort the same incidents into sensor fault, communications loss, procedural deviation, or unverified reset. Their classifications do not translate uniquely: multiple depot terms fall within communications loss, and “ghost occupancy” appears under three engineering classes depending on telemetry. The analytics lead excludes the depot logs from the quarterly failure analysis. No audit has found them inaccurate, and the lead does not challenge particular entries; he argues that records written by the people who repair the equipment are inevitably biased defenses of their own work. Automated telemetry and engineering annotations are accepted because they originate outside the maintenance crews. Consequently, the official analysis reports a clean distribution of standardized fault classes while experienced maintainers say it merges incidents that demand sharply different judgments during diagnosis.","scenario_title":"Depot Fault Logs Rejected in a Signaling Review","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case uses railway maintenance, telemetry, and reliability vocabulary, substantially separated from the religious-ethnographic language of the direct case and from the supplied predicate wording."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b025_a01_c1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The scenario states that the depot and engineering taxonomies have an exact, exhaustive bidirectional correspondence, so the shared prerequisite of B1 is false."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b025_a01_c1","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"The scenario states that the two groups use perfectly corresponding classifications, so the shared prerequisite of B3 is false."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b025_a01_c1","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The scenario states that every term has exactly one equivalent in the other taxonomy, so the shared prerequisite of B4 is false."}],"case_id":"E14A032__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Railway signaling maintenance and reliability analytics","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":"b025_a01_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains explicit negative evidence and a source-based exclusion but offers no corrective action or solution description.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b025_a01_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"A completed crosswalk establishes an exact one-to-one, exhaustive correspondence between every maintainer term and every engineering class."},{"condition_id":"b025_a01_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The analytics lead excludes accurate depot records solely because maintenance staff authored them."}],"scenario_text":"A railway operator is reviewing intermittent signaling failures across three depots. Veteran maintainers and reliability engineers use different names for fault types, but a completed crosswalk shows exact correspondence: each depot term has one and only one engineering code, every engineering code has one depot equivalent, and neither list contains an unmatched category. Independent reviewers have applied the crosswalk to two years of incidents without a disputed classification. Even so, the analytics lead removes all depot-authored logs from the quarterly failure analysis. No audit has found fabrication, missing fields, or inconsistent entries, and he raises no objection to any individual record. His stated reason is that documents written by employees who repair the equipment are inherently self-protective and cannot be credible evidence. Identical incident details remain admissible when copied into reports by outside engineers. The published analysis therefore draws only on telemetry and consultant records, despite the established equivalence of the two classification systems and the verified consistency of the excluded logs.","scenario_title":"Equivalent Depot Records Excluded by Author Identity","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss retains the transfer case's railway vocabulary and operational complexity while adding explicit correspondence evidence; it neither copies a supplied predicate nor introduces archetype terminology."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A032","schema_version":1}