{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A012__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Hospital quality governance","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains observations and consequences only; it proposes no corrective action or design.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Executives and clinicians treat remarks in open meetings and signed comments as evidence of staff sentiment."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Employees expect lost opportunities, difficult assignments, and peer hostility if they voice the seemingly unpopular concern."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A confidential survey finds broad private concern despite almost unanimous approval in observable forums."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Each sparsely contested meeting strengthens the impression of agreement and makes later critics still less willing to speak."}],"scenario_text":"A regional hospital is deciding whether to retain a productivity policy that shortens the time allocated for inpatient handoffs. Executives judge staff acceptance mainly from comments at monthly town halls, department meetings, and signed posts on the clinical intranet. In those settings, nearly every contribution praises the policy or treats it as settled. A confidential workforce survey, however, finds that most nurses and many physicians believe it is increasing missed information and near errors.\n\nEmployees say that openly challenging the policy would mark them as inefficient, obstructive, or disloyal to their department. Junior clinicians especially worry about undesirable assignments, stalled advancement, and being shunned by colleagues who appear supportive. Because objections are rarely heard, staff members entering each meeting assume that concern is confined to a tiny fringe. Several who had planned to raise incidents then remain quiet or soften their accounts. Their restraint leaves leaders and coworkers with an even stronger impression of broad approval, and the next round of discussion attracts fewer candid objections.","scenario_title":"Unspoken concern over hospital handoffs","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses clinical governance, patient-safety, staffing, and promotion language; it is distinct from the online gaming vocabulary of the transfer case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A012__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Online multiplayer gaming community","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement diagnoses community behavior without suggesting moderation changes, polling practices, or other remedies.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Members estimate support from voice-chat remarks, reaction icons, and forum posts."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Players fear ridicule, loss of raid roles, and exclusion from future teams if they criticize the rule."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Private interviews reveal extensive opposition that is absent from guild channels."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Seemingly unanimous channel activity causes hesitant members to abandon drafts and makes the rule look increasingly uncontested."}],"scenario_text":"A large multiplayer guild has adopted a rule requiring members to stream every competitive raid. Players estimate the guild's attitude toward the rule from voice-chat remarks, reaction icons, and posts in the guild forum. Those channels look overwhelmingly enthusiastic: celebratory clips receive dozens of approvals, while almost no one complains. Yet private interviews with a representative set of members reveal that many dislike the rule because of household privacy, bandwidth costs, or anxiety about being watched.\n\nReluctant players believe criticism will invite mockery, removal from prized raid roles, or exclusion when teams are formed. Several have typed objections and deleted them after scanning the approving reactions. Newer members interpret the absence of complaints as proof that nearly everyone else enjoys streaming, even though their own reservations are common in private conversations. After each apparently unanimous discussion, uncertain players become less willing to be the first visible dissenter. The resulting quiet is read as further endorsement, causing subsequent forum threads and voice sessions to appear even more one-sided than the guild's actual views.","scenario_title":"The guild rule nobody seems to oppose","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Recasts the structure through raids, streaming, reaction icons, bandwidth, and team selection, substantially separating it from the hospital case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A012__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Competitive gaming discussion server","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b045_a04_c3","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports an audit and participation pattern but offers no intervention, recommendation, or solution language.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Participants and moderators use messages and emoji reactions to estimate the community's stance."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Supporters of the less popular position expect ridicule, lost invitations, or ejection if they post."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c3","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"A representative confidential poll exactly matches the proportions observed in public activity, and the account explicitly states that no concealed aggregate gap exists."},{"condition_id":"b045_a04_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A run of dominant messages reduces later posting willingness among people holding the less popular view."}],"scenario_text":"A competitive gaming discussion server is divided over whether match replays should remain publicly downloadable. Members and moderators judge the community's position from chat messages, threaded comments, and emoji reactions. Public activity runs roughly 72 percent in favor of open downloads and 28 percent against. A confidential poll using a representative member sample produces the same 72–28 split. Follow-up checks likewise find no concealed difference between what members privately favor and the proportions expressed in the server.\n\nEven so, people on the less popular side expect that a critical post may bring ridicule, fewer invitations to scrimmages, or removal by an impatient moderator. After several strongly pro-download messages appear in succession, some opponents say they become less inclined to join the thread or delay posting until someone else objects. Participants treat the visible balance of messages as their best indication of where the server stands, and that apparent balance affects who feels ready to speak next. Other opponents still post often enough that the aggregate public split continues to match the confidential poll rather than overstating support for either side.","scenario_title":"A contentious server with no hidden opinion gap","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Maintains the transfer case's gaming-community difficulty and sanction vocabulary while changing the issue and explicitly preserving equality between confidential and observable distributions."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A012","schema_version":1}