{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c4","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"The patent's remaining term and projected demand are stable, and both firms estimate that total litigation expense will remain a modest fraction of the exclusive license's value; neither prize erosion nor a Pyrrhic outcome is present."}],"case_id":"E15A011__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Medical-device patent litigation","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports the dispute, expenditures, irreversibility, and confidential limits without proposing any intervention or describing a solution pattern.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The remaining claimant would obtain an exclusive United States licensing position worth roughly $28 million."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Both firms continually incur outside-counsel bills, expert-retainer charges, discovery labor, executive time, and launch delays."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Monthly legal and operational expenditures are nonrefundable and cannot be recaptured after withdrawal."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each firm privately knows its board's spending ceiling, insurance coverage, cash runway, and acceptable delay, while the opponent sees only public filings."}],"scenario_text":"Two midsize medical-device firms claim exclusive rights to the same catheter-coating patent. A federal case and parallel licensing talks have narrowed the dispute: if either firm dismisses its claim and accepts nonexclusive sales, the remaining claimant keeps the exclusive United States licensing position, currently valued at about $28 million. Every month, both companies pay outside counsel, expert retainers, discovery vendors, and dedicated technical staff. Product managers also lose time while planned launches remain on hold. Those bills and delays are nonrefundable; ending the case would not recover anything already spent.\n\nEach firm knows its own board-approved spending ceiling, insurance coverage, cash runway, and tolerance for postponing launch, but none of those limits is disclosed. Public filings reveal activity without showing when either board will refuse another month of expense. The patent's remaining term and forecast demand have stayed stable, and both companies estimate that even the full expected litigation bill is a modest fraction of the exclusive license's value. Nevertheless, each continues authorizing work while waiting for the other to abandon its claim.","scenario_title":"The Coating Patent Dispute","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses courtroom, patent, licensing, discovery, insurance, and product-launch language, distinct from the maritime operations vocabulary of the transfer cases."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c4","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"The sealed cargo remains preserved, the claim's legal value is fixed for the season, and projected station-keeping expense remains well below the recovery right's value."}],"case_id":"E15A011__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Offshore archaeological salvage operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no recommendation, intervention, named archetype, or prescriptive language.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Continuous presence could leave one operator with the sole seasonal recovery claim to a cargo appraised at $11 million."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Both operators pay daily vessel charter, fuel, crew bonuses, remotely operated vehicle standby, and weather-related charges."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each day's charter, fuel, wages, and standby charges are consumed and unavailable for refund if the vessel departs."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Fuel terms, credit capacity, crew fatigue limits, and the owners' maximum authorized station time remain confidential."}],"scenario_text":"Two offshore recovery operators have vessels holding position above a newly authenticated seventeenth-century wreck. Under the provisional maritime order governing this season, an operator that breaks continuous station-keeping forfeits its competing claim; if one departs, the other retains the sole right to seek recovery of the sealed cargo, appraised at $11 million. Both vessels consume fuel and incur charter charges every day. Crews receive hazard bonuses, remotely operated vehicles remain on paid standby, and bad-weather days still count against the operators' contracted vessel time. None of these daily expenditures is refundable once incurred.\n\nThe captains can observe the rival vessel's movements but not its discounted fuel contract, remaining credit capacity, crew-fatigue cutoff, or the owners' maximum authorized time on station. Each company therefore knows its own limit while estimating the other's from sparse signals. The cargo is preserved in stable sediment, its appraisal has not declined, and the seasonal order fixes the legal value of the claim. Even several additional weeks of operating expense would remain well below the estimated recovery value. Both vessels continue holding position, with each owner expecting the other company's undisclosed limit to arrive first.","scenario_title":"Station-Keeping Above the San Telmo","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case shifts from intellectual-property litigation to ships, fuel, crews, subsea equipment, maritime orders, and wreck recovery; its surface language does not reuse the direct case's legal-process framing."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"HR1","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"A written maritime determination makes departure and persistence irrelevant to permit allocation, so there is no outcome awarded to the final vessel remaining on station."}],"case_id":"E15A011__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Offshore archaeological survey operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement supplies factual negative evidence about the absent outcome but offers no remedy, recommendation, or solution description.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The authority has ruled that remaining longer yields neither company any cargo right, permit priority, payment, scheduling preference, precedent, recognition, or reputational advantage."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Both companies continue paying daily charter, fuel, crew, satellite-link, and equipment-standby charges."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"All daily operating charges are consumed as incurred and remain unrecoverable after departure."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each company privately knows its credit headroom, fuel commitment, crew limit, and cancellation date while lacking the rival's corresponding information."}],"scenario_text":"Two marine-survey companies have kept chartered vessels circling the same deep-water wreck site for nineteen days. Their directors have not rescinded standing instructions to remain until the rival vessel leaves. Both companies consequently pay daily charter rates, fuel, crew wages, satellite-link fees, and standby charges for sonar equipment. These amounts are consumed as incurred, and neither the shipowners nor equipment suppliers provide refunds when a vessel eventually returns to port.\n\nEach company privately knows its remaining credit headroom, prepaid fuel commitment, crew-fatigue limit, and the date its directors will cancel the deployment. The rival sees only course changes, resupply visits, and occasional deck activity, none of which reliably reveals those limits. However, the maritime authority has already issued a final written determination that continuous presence has no bearing on the site. Survey permits will be assigned months later by a random draw among qualified applicants. Staying after the other vessel departs gives no cargo right, permit priority, payment, scheduling preference, legal precedent, public recognition, or reputational benefit. Thus, although the daily burn, irreversibility, and confidential stopping limits remain, there is no valuable result for the vessel that stays longer.","scenario_title":"The Empty Watch at Calder Bank","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss retains the transfer case's maritime difficulty and operational vocabulary while replacing the valuable recovery claim with an explicit determination that persistence confers no advantage."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A011","schema_version":1}