{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A033__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"County rental-assistance administration","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports the interpretive failure and its operational consequences without proposing changes or interventions.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b062_a12_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Applicants, caseworkers, and legal reviewers assign materially different scopes to the unchanged portal phrase “household member.”"}],"scenario_text":"A county rental-assistance portal asks applicants to list every “household member” before calculating eligibility. The housing department uses the phrase for anyone who ordinarily occupies the unit, including unrelated roommates and relatives temporarily away for work. Many applicants understand it to mean only spouses and dependent children. Caseworkers accustomed to tax forms often count everyone claimed on a return, while legal reviewers include people with a documented right to reside at the address even if they are currently elsewhere. The portal displays the identical heading and help text to all three groups. As a result, two families with comparable living arrangements can submit very different rosters, and staff may alter the roster again during review. Income totals, bedroom allowances, and requests for supporting records then vary according to who handled the file rather than the occupants’ circumstances. Complaints describe the question as clear, yet interviews reveal that each group is confidently answering a different question.","scenario_title":"Who Counts on the Rental Application","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses public-benefit eligibility language and administrative review vocabulary, distinct from the industrial audio-alert vocabulary of the transfer cases."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A033__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Refrigerated freight operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no recommendation, redesign proposal, or prescriptive action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b062_a12_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Engineers, drivers, and loading crews understand the identical three-tone sequence as indicating different operational states and actions."}],"scenario_text":"At a refrigerated freight terminal, each loading bay emits three short tones when a trailer’s temperature crosses its permitted range. Control engineers treat the sequence as confirmation that the sensor has registered an exception and that the bay remains under review. Visiting drivers commonly hear it as clearance to disconnect because similar tones at other depots mark completion. Loading crews associate the sequence with an immediate aisle hazard and stop moving pallets, based on drills conducted elsewhere in the facility. The sound pattern, volume, and timing are identical for everyone present, and the equipment logs show that it plays correctly. Nevertheless, operations diverge as soon as it sounds: some drivers begin detaching lines, some crews halt work, and dispatchers wait for a status check that others assume has already occurred. Incident reports call the alert unambiguous because it is consistent across all bays, but interviews show that each occupational group confidently links the three tones to a different stage of the process.","scenario_title":"Three Tones at the Cold-Storage Dock","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case shifts from government forms and eligibility decisions to refrigerated logistics, machinery, and workplace audio cues, with no distinctive wording carried over."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E14A033__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Refrigerated freight operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b062_a12_c2","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement isolates the failure without suggesting equipment changes, training, procedures, or any other remedy.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b062_a12_c2","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Drivers, loading crews, dispatchers, and engineers unanimously give the intended definition of the tones and respond consistently whenever they hear them."}],"scenario_text":"At another refrigerated freight terminal, each loading bay is supposed to emit three short tones when a trailer’s temperature exceeds its permitted range. Drivers, loading crews, dispatchers, and control engineers all define the sequence identically: it confirms that an exception has been registered and that the bay is awaiting review. In interviews and supervised drills, every group selects that definition, rejects clearance and evacuation interpretations, and takes the expected status-dependent action whenever the tones are audible. The operational record still shows frequent unacknowledged temperature events. Maintenance logs reveal intermittent speaker failures at several bays, while active compressors and mandatory hearing protection often prevent nearby workers from detecting tones that do play. In some incidents, the controller records the event but sends no audible output at all. Staff accounts do not conflict about what the sequence denotes; they uniformly report either hearing the expected alert or hearing nothing. The recurring breakdown therefore occurs despite consistent understanding across all exposed groups.","scenario_title":"The Alert Everyone Understands but Often Cannot Hear","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss deliberately retains the transfer case’s refrigerated-terminal setting and alert vocabulary while reversing only the audience-interpretation fact; the direct case remains lexically and operationally distinct."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp14_applicability_retrieval40_20260813","sample_id":"E14A033","schema_version":1}