{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A010__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Hospital pathology laboratory","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement presents the incident, judgment, and surrounding facts without proposing corrective action or naming a diagnostic method.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Within minutes, the clinical team characterized Nia as careless and unreliable."},{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The clinicians could see the delayed result but not the laboratory conditions under which Nia worked."},{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A mislabeled rack, analyzer outage, unreachable specialist, and escalating specimen queue materially narrowed Nia's options."}],"scenario_text":"During an overnight shift at a regional hospital, technologist Nia released a critical potassium result forty minutes after the laboratory's target time. The intensive-care team saw the delay in the electronic chart but received no explanation. Within minutes, two clinicians described her as careless and said she was probably one of those employees who could not be trusted under pressure. They knew only that she had acknowledged the specimen shortly after it arrived.\n\nInside the laboratory, a rack had been loaded under the wrong accession number by the prior shift, the primary analyzer had stopped mid-cycle, and the backup instrument required manual calibration. Nia also had six urgent specimens waiting and could not reach the on-call pathology fellow to resolve a discrepancy between two readings. Releasing the first value risked reporting the wrong patient's result; holding it meant missing the turnaround target. None of these details appeared in the clinical team's view of the chart, where the event looked like a single worker simply taking too long.","scenario_title":"The Late Potassium Result","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses clinical laboratory vocabulary and an electronic-chart visibility gap; it does not repeat any supplied condition wording or name the archetype."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A010__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Touring theatrical production","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no intervention, advice, diagnostic procedure, or archetype terminology.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The producer immediately inferred that Mateo was arrogant and indifferent."},{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The producer observed the missed entrance from the auditorium without access to backstage communications or hazards."},{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A silent headset, blocked crossover, altered cue sequence, and safety concern constrained Mateo's route to the stage."}],"scenario_text":"At the opening performance of a touring musical, Mateo, a veteran ensemble member, missed a prominent entrance and appeared onstage nearly a minute into the number. Watching from the auditorium, the visiting producer immediately called him arrogant and complained that experienced performers sometimes stopped caring about the company. Mateo had also seemed curt during notes that afternoon, which made the judgment feel convincing. The producer could see the empty position in the choreography but had no view of the wing or the crew channel.\n\nBackstage, Mateo's wireless headset had gone silent after a battery pack was swapped. A rolling staircase was parked across his normal crossover, and a last-minute lighting change had moved his entrance from one side of the stage to the other without reaching his dressing-room call sheet. When he tried the alternate passage, two technicians were guiding a suspended scenery piece through it, making entry unsafe. He waited until the load cleared and then joined at the first musical phrase he could identify. From the house, the entire sequence registered only as an actor arriving late.","scenario_title":"The Empty Place in the Chorus","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Shifts from medicine to live theater and uses stage, choreography, scenery, and performance language while preserving the relevant causal structure."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A010__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Touring theatrical production","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b063_a05_c5","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports findings from an incident reconstruction solely as case facts and offers no remedy, recommendation, or named framework.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The artistic director immediately labeled Elise selfish and undisciplined."},{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"At the time of judgment, the director had seen the missed entrance but had not yet examined Elise's backstage circumstances."},{"condition_id":"b063_a05_c5","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The subsequent reconstruction explicitly established that cues, equipment, access routes, staffing, and safety conditions were normal and left the scheduled entrance fully available."}],"scenario_text":"During the final performance of a touring play, Elise remained in her dressing room through her scheduled entrance, leaving another actor to improvise around her absence. From the auditorium, the artistic director noticed the missing character and immediately called Elise selfish and undisciplined. He had not been backstage and did not yet know whether she had received her call, whether a costume problem had occurred, or whether the route to the stage was open. Her tense exchange with the stage manager earlier that day made his conclusion seem especially plausible.\n\nThe completed incident record, however, ruled out those possibilities. Elise's call speaker and headset were working, and timestamped acknowledgments showed that she heard both standby notices. Her costume and microphone had passed checks. Both backstage passages were clear, the crew was fully staffed, the cue sequence had not changed, and no safety hold or competing duty affected her entrance. Dressing-room video showed her reading the notices and choosing to continue a personal phone conversation until after the scene began. The production conditions left the scheduled entrance readily available; she simply did not take it.","scenario_title":"The Unanswered Entrance Call","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Retains the transfer domain's operational detail and theatrical vocabulary while explicitly separating the initial information gap from the later finding that production circumstances did not restrict the actor's choice."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A010","schema_version":1}