{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A011__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Commercial litigation over a port operating concession","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement presents only the dispute, incentives, expenditures, and information asymmetry; it contains no recommendation, intervention, or solution language.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The litigants are pursuing an exclusive twenty-year terminal concession valued at approximately $48 million."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Both firms continually incur legal fees, expert charges, bond premiums, management demands, and operational disruption."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Settled invoices, consumed retainers, completed expert work, and diverted management hours cannot be recovered after withdrawal."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each board privately knows its own financing limit, tolerance for disruption, and settlement threshold but cannot observe the rival's limits."}],"scenario_text":"Northbridge Logistics and Seagate Cargo are contesting the same exclusive twenty-year concession to operate a newly completed container terminal. If either company abandons its claim, the other expects to receive the uncontested operating license, which both boards value at roughly $48 million. While injunction proceedings and appeals continue, each firm pays outside counsel, maritime experts, bond premiums, and senior executives pulled away from normal operations. Those invoices are settled monthly; used retainers, completed expert work, and management hours cannot be reclaimed if a claim is withdrawn. Each board knows its own credit headroom, tolerance for further disruption, and confidential settlement threshold. Neither can see the other's financing limits or how much pressure its directors are willing to absorb. Public filings reveal that both claims remain active, but little else. Executives on each side interpret the rival's continued participation as evidence that it may be able to keep paying, even though internal forecasts about the rival's staying capacity vary widely.","scenario_title":"The Harbor Concession Case","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses port licensing, litigation, financing, and corporate-governance vocabulary; the transfer case uses cloud infrastructure, uptime, engineering, and competition vocabulary."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A011__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Cloud-service endurance competition","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes the competition and its operating burdens without suggesting changes, actions, mechanisms, or remedies.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A single $750,000 production contract and prominent conference recognition go to the last qualifying service still online."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The finalists continuously consume paid compute, database capacity, engineer shifts, and reliability exposure."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Hourly infrastructure charges are final, completed shifts cannot be reclaimed, and consumed credits are not restored after exit."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each team conceals its remaining credits, staffing depth, fatigue limits, and acceptable failure risk."}],"scenario_text":"Two small software companies have reached the final stage of a cloud reliability competition. The sponsor will award one $750,000 production contract, along with prominent conference recognition, to the last qualifying service that remains online under a continuously generated workload. Every additional hour consumes rented processors, database capacity, network traffic, and overnight engineering coverage. The providers settle infrastructure charges hourly, completed on-call shifts cannot be reclaimed, and cloud credits already consumed are not restored when a company exits. Both dashboards expose uptime and response latency, so each finalist can see that the rival is still operating. They do not disclose remaining credits, staffing depth, founders' appetite for further spending, or the failure risk each is prepared to accept. One company has a private ceiling imposed by its investors; the other has an undisclosed reserve agreement with a hosting vendor. Because neither side knows the other's actual limits, continued uptime is repeatedly read as a signal of deeper capacity than outsiders can verify.","scenario_title":"The Last Service Online","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Its operational language—processors, latency, hosting credits, on-call shifts, and uptime—is substantially separated from the direct case's legal and maritime terminology."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c4","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"There is no prize or victory whose value can decay or become Pyrrhic; the public dataset's utility remains stable, and neither group receives a benefit when the other stops."}],"case_id":"E15A011__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Duplicate university data-mirror operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains diagnostic facts and explicit negative evidence only; it neither proposes an intervention nor hints at a preferred course of action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Written terms establish that persistence yields no award, contract, authority, exclusive access, budget advantage, ranking, or recognition, and one group's exit gives the other nothing."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Both groups continually incur cloud charges, alert coverage, staff effort, and displaced research work."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Paid hosting bills, completed night shifts, and consumed staff time remain unrecoverable if a replica is shut down."},{"condition_id":"b005_a11_b005_a11_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each group privately knows its remaining grant flexibility, staff fatigue boundary, and willingness to continue, while the other sees only public uptime."}],"scenario_text":"Two university computing groups continue operating separate public mirrors of the same stable climate archive while a cross-campus governance review remains unresolved. The written funding terms are explicit: there is no award, contract, control right, exclusive access, budget advantage, ranking, or public recognition for keeping a mirror active longer. If either replica shuts down, the other group receives nothing, and the archive's usefulness does not change. Even so, each team pays hourly hosting and storage charges, assigns researchers to overnight alerts, and postpones unrelated technical work. Bills already paid are final, completed shifts cannot be reclaimed, and staff time spent on the mirror remains unavailable to past projects if the service is later closed. Each group privately knows how much grant flexibility remains, how fatigued its staff has become, and the point at which its director would stop authorizing coverage. The other group can observe only the public uptime page, not those internal limits, so neither knows how long both replicas will remain active.","scenario_title":"Two Mirrors Pending Review","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss deliberately retains the transfer case's technical-operational difficulty and vocabulary while replacing the sponsored competition with noncompetitive academic infrastructure; it remains distinct from the direct legal-port domain."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A011","schema_version":1}