{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The curators agree on the causes of the defeat; the problem concerns how the agreed account is narrated, so the three-condition route cannot be completed."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c6","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"The exhibit makes no claims about what would have happened under imagined alternatives."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c8","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The account is not being used to excuse an institution or celebrate a lone hero."}],"case_id":"E15A008__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Military-history museum curation","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement identifies an explanatory distortion without proposing revisions, displays, methods, or other corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b015_a11_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Knowing the capital eventually fell, the exhibit turns each earlier dispatch into a step that supposedly pointed unmistakably toward defeat."},{"condition_id":"b015_a11_c7","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The shared label and quarterly totals erase differences in provisions, communications, and retreat opportunities that shaped commanders' contemporary judgments."}],"scenario_text":"A military museum is preparing an exhibition on the fall of a nineteenth-century capital. Its storyline begins with the known defeat and presents each earlier dispatch—an ammunition request, a delayed courier, a commander’s warning—as another unmistakable step toward collapse. The curators agree about the principal causes, and the exhibit makes no claims about what might have happened under imagined alternatives. Yet it repeatedly describes all western garrisons as one declining defensive line, supported by quarterly totals for troops and provisions. The underlying correspondence shows that officers assigned to that label confronted sharply different situations: one post had food but no reliable communications, another had an open retreat corridor for only two days, and a third received contradictory orders while reinforcements were nearby. Those distinctions affected what the officers believed was still possible when they acted. The exhibition is not meant to excuse the army or elevate a single commander; its problem is that the finished sequence reads as though participants should already have recognized the ending that visitors know.","scenario_title":"The Foreordained Fall of the Capital","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses museum, campaign, garrison, dispatch, provisions, and command vocabulary; the transfer cases use telescope-survey, signal-processing, and observing-queue vocabulary."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"Researchers agree on the physical explanation and do not dispute whether the discovery was inevitable, accidental, or primarily attributable to an individual."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c6","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"The retrospective advances no claim about how an alternative history would have unfolded."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c8","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The narrative is explicitly not being used to assign institutional blame or singular heroic credit."}],"case_id":"E15A008__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Astronomical survey history","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no recommendation about archives, analysis, publication, or observing practice.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b015_a11_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"After confirmation, the retrospective recasts ambiguous early measurements and routine choices as an unmistakable progression toward discovery."},{"condition_id":"b015_a11_c7","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A common candidate class and nightly mean score conceal differences in contamination warnings, weather windows, and telescope access that affected observers' choices."}],"scenario_text":"An astronomy journal is publishing a retrospective on the first confirmed planet produced by a long-running transit survey. Because the signal was eventually verified, the article casts an early brightness dip, a routine software flag, and each follow-up request as a clean progression toward discovery. Researchers do not dispute the physical explanation, argue that another history would necessarily have produced the same result, or use the account to allocate institutional blame or singular heroic credit. The article groups that season’s targets as “high-priority candidates” and summarizes them with a nightly mean ranking score. Observing logs reveal consequential differences inside that bin. Some targets carried unresolved binary-star warnings; others were visible during only one short weather window; several teams lacked access to the spectrograph needed for prompt confirmation. These differences shaped which signals observers considered credible and which follow-up requests they could justify at the time. In the published chronology, however, the confirmed object’s initially ambiguous measurements acquire the appearance of clues that competent observers should have understood from the beginning.","scenario_title":"A Discovery Rewritten After Confirmation","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case replaces historical institutions and wartime records with light measurements, software flags, candidate rankings, spectrograph access, and observing logs."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The researchers agree on the detection's physical explanation and are not debating structural, accidental, individual, or inevitable causation."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c6","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"No alternative-history claim is made at any level of analysis."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b015_a11_c8","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The retrospective is not being used to evade responsibility or magnify an individual's heroism."}],"case_id":"E15A008__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Astronomical survey history","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":"b015_a11_c7","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement diagnoses the retrospective account but offers no intervention, redesign, or corrective procedure.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b015_a11_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The known confirmation causes ordinary early measurements to be retold as unmistakable clues along a predetermined path."},{"condition_id":"b015_a11_c7","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"A contemporaneous audit establishes that every relevant candidate and observer had materially equivalent conditions, so the aggregate accurately represents the choices available."}],"scenario_text":"An astronomy journal is publishing a retrospective on the first confirmed planet produced by a long-running transit survey. With the signal now verified, the article portrays an early brightness dip, a routine software flag, and each follow-up request as a clear sequence that should have announced the discovery from the outset. Researchers agree on the physical explanation, make no claims about how an alternative history would have unfolded, and are not using the account to assign institutional blame or exceptional personal glory. As in the survey’s original reports, the article groups that season’s targets as “high-priority candidates” and cites their nightly mean ranking score. A contemporaneous operations audit, however, establishes that this grouping was faithful for every factor relevant to observers’ decisions: the targets had equivalent contamination checks, identical visibility windows, the same follow-up thresholds, and equal access to the required spectrograph. No team possessed extra information or faced a distinct practical constraint hidden by the average. The distortion lies solely in the retrospective chronology, which turns measurements that were genuinely inconclusive at the time into apparently unmistakable early clues.","scenario_title":"Obvious Only After the Signal Was Known","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss preserves the transfer case's astronomical vocabulary and technical difficulty while expressly making the candidate group homogeneous on every decision-relevant dimension."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A008","schema_version":1}