{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A004__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Municipal infrastructure redevelopment","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement presents only the commitment history, decision pattern, worsening outlook, and reputational constraints; it proposes no intervention or corrective mechanism.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The city has spent $640 million, relocated utilities, demolished buildings, and issued bonds for the corridor."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each budget cycle begins by determining the next funding tranche, while competing uses are considered only after the project is funded."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Ridership forecasts, employer commitments, construction costs, and future operating subsidies have all moved adversely."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Cancellation would publicly repudiate the mayor's signature pledge and the council's prior assurances, with no credible interpretation that preserves their standing."}],"scenario_text":"For seven years, a midsized city has been building a light-rail corridor championed by its mayor and council majority. The city has already spent $640 million, relocated utilities, demolished several blocks, and issued bonds whose campaign materials promised a revitalized downtown. Each budget cycle now starts with staff calculating the next construction tranche; parks, bus maintenance, and flood control are discussed only after that amount is reserved.\n\nThe original ridership forecast depended on three major employers expanding near the line. Two have since adopted permanent remote-work policies, and the third moved its headquarters. Updated estimates show lower fare revenue, sharply higher construction costs, and decades of operating subsidies. Nevertheless, weak numbers are described at public meetings as proof that abandoning the corridor now would waste everything already endured. The mayor won reelection by portraying completion as a measure of the city's competence, while several council members personally recruited neighborhood leaders to support disruptive property acquisitions. Cancellation would amount to repudiating their defining pledge and admitting those sacrifices were demanded for nothing; no credible public account would leave their standing intact.","scenario_title":"The Corridor That Defines City Hall","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses municipal-finance, transit-construction, public-budget, and electoral vocabulary, distinct from the transfer case's expeditionary fieldwork and academic sponsorship language."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A004__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Academic polar expedition","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no proposed decision rule, governance change, intervention, or exit design; it remains a description of the troubled expedition.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The consortium has spent four seasons, exhausted most grant funds, drilled failed cores, and built specialized equipment and logistics around the site."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Planning meetings assume another season and focus on its logistics, while other sites and uses of funds are no longer compared."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Repeated cores lack the target layer, radar has invalidated the original geological model, and access conditions are worsening."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Leaving would concede the expedition's central scientific claim and damage the leader's authority and sponsors' standing, with no credible face-saving account."}],"scenario_text":"A university consortium has spent four Arctic field seasons searching beneath one ice shelf for a sediment layer expected to contain a unique climate record. Most of the eight-year grant is gone, twelve cores have missed the target, and a custom drilling rig, supply chain, and doctoral training program were built around this location. Planning meetings nevertheless open with dates and cargo weights for a fifth season; alternative sites and other uses for the remaining funds have disappeared from the agenda.\n\nNew radar surveys indicate that the shelf's underlying geology differs from the model used in the grant proposal. The expected layer may never have formed there, fuel costs have doubled, and the safe-access window is shrinking. The principal investigator interprets every empty core as justification for drilling deeper and has assured sponsors that the next attempt will vindicate the team's persistence. She built her international reputation on the site's promise and persuaded junior researchers to stake dissertations on it. The sponsoring institutes have celebrated the expedition as proof of national scientific leadership. Leaving without the sought layer would concede the central claim and publicly diminish both her authority and their prestige; none of the participants sees a credible account that preserves that standing.","scenario_title":"The Fifth Season on the Ice Shelf","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case shifts from civic construction to polar science and uses drilling, geology, grants, field seasons, dissertations, and research-prestige vocabulary."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A004__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Academic polar expedition","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b026_a09_c2","remedy_leakage_audit":"The procedural comparison is an existing fact that supplies necessary negative evidence; the statement neither recommends it nor presents any further intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Four field seasons, most of the grant, specialized machinery, logistics, and researcher careers have already been committed to the site."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c2","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The latest allocation review began without a presumed choice, compared four equal-status options using only future costs and expected results, and required each option to justify itself anew."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Core failures, revised radar findings, higher fuel costs, and a shorter safe-access window make future success less likely."},{"condition_id":"b026_a09_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Withdrawal would concede the expedition's public scientific claim and strip status from its leader and sponsors, with no credible account preserving their prestige."}],"scenario_text":"A university consortium has spent four Arctic field seasons searching beneath one ice shelf for a rare sediment layer. Most of its grant has been consumed, twelve cores have failed, and specialized machinery, logistics contracts, and several doctoral projects are tied to the location. Revised radar findings now suggest the layer may never have formed there. Fuel prices have doubled, and the annual window for safe access continues to contract.\n\nThe latest allocation review, however, did not presume another expedition. Trustees began with four equal-status choices: revisit the shelf, move to either of two other sites, or end fieldwork and analyze existing samples. Each team submitted the same forward-looking cost and probability estimates; expenditures already made were excluded, and every option had to establish its merits anew. After debate, the trustees narrowly selected one more season at the original shelf.\n\nThe decision remains fraught because the principal investigator built her reputation on this site's promise, and sponsors promoted it as evidence of national scientific leadership. Withdrawal would concede that defining claim and undermine both her authority and their prestige. Participants can identify no credible version of departure that would preserve that standing.","scenario_title":"A Contested Return to the Shelf","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss deliberately retains the transfer case's polar-research setting, technical difficulty, and field vocabulary while changing only the allocation procedure needed to contradict the designated condition."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A004","schema_version":1}