{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A021__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"electronics manufacturing quality control","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The scenario states the diagnostic problem without naming a method, recommending an intervention, or prescribing validation procedures.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Similar coating failures have appeared across multiple production lines and quarters."},{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Line-specific thresholds and inspection rules suppress individual alarms but do not reveal the relation among process signatures."},{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Supplier quarantine and retooling decisions assume that nearby boards share a physical failure mechanism, although that assumption has not been checked."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Reason codes are inconsistent, while boards are compared through engineered summaries of sensor and image data."},{"condition_id":"HR2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Normalization, distance rule, time window, variable weighting, and computational procedure each produce different credible groupings."}],"scenario_text":"A regional electronics manufacturer has seen visually similar coating failures on circuit boards from several production lines over four quarters. The official reason codes are entered differently by each shift, and later audits often overturn them. Analysts therefore compare boards using summaries of oven temperatures, vibration traces, inspection images, and production timing. Line engineers have repeatedly adjusted alarm thresholds and added narrow inspection rules; these changes suppress particular alerts but have not explained why the same failure pattern keeps returning under apparently unrelated settings.\n\nManagement must decide whether to quarantine suppliers or retool specific lines. That decision currently assumes that boards lying close together in the engineered feature representation share a physical failure mechanism, although nobody has established that link. Several analyses all produce tidy-looking families of boards, yet the families change when variables are normalized, image features receive more weight, correlation replaces geometric distance, the observation window changes, or a density-based procedure replaces a fixed-count grouping procedure. Some resulting families align with factories, others with seasons or camera models, leaving the apparent structure consequential but uncertain.","scenario_title":"Recurring Circuit-Board Coating Failures","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses manufacturing-specific language about boards, ovens, suppliers, inspection images, and production lines; it avoids the archetype name and does not reproduce any supplied predicate verbatim."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A021__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"marine bioacoustics and shipping regulation","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The scenario presents conflicting evidence and decision stakes without suggesting a technical or policy remedy.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The unfamiliar call pattern appears across years, basins, and independent hydrophone deployments."},{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Deployment-specific filters and manual lookup tables remove noise locally but do not explain relations among the calls."},{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A shipping restriction would rely on the unchecked belief that acoustically similar clips come from the same vulnerable population."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Species annotations are missing or disputed, and recordings are compared using selected acoustic summaries and learned encodings."},{"condition_id":"HR2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Different encodings, frequency treatments, similarity rules, temporal scales, and grouping procedures yield incompatible but credible call families."}],"scenario_text":"Marine monitors have recorded an unfamiliar family of low-frequency calls in several ocean basins, during different seasons, and across independent hydrophone deployments over three years. Existing species annotations are sparse, inherited from contractors, and disputed by experts when calls overlap or equipment distorts pitch. Researchers compare thousands of clips through selected spectral summaries, pulse timing, geographic context, and learned audio encodings. Deployment teams have tried site-specific noise filters and hand-built lookup tables, but those patches only clean individual archives and do not explain the recurring relationships among calls.\n\nA coastal authority is considering seasonal shipping restrictions. Its assessment implicitly treats acoustically similar clips as evidence of one vulnerable biological population, even though that correspondence has never been established. The recordings form convincing-looking families under several analyses, but membership changes sharply when raw spectra replace learned encodings, frequency bands are weighted differently, correlation replaces waveform distance, clips are measured over longer intervals, or the computational procedure favors compact rather than irregular shapes. One result follows geography, another water depth, and another recording hardware, while each appears coherent enough to influence the regulatory decision.","scenario_title":"Uncertain Families of Ocean Calls","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Moves from factory failures to marine acoustics, hydrophones, animal calls, ocean basins, and shipping regulation, with substantially different surface vocabulary and no copied predicate."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A021__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"marine bioacoustics and shipping regulation","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b025_a02_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The near miss supplies explicit negative evidence for the omitted condition while offering no intervention, methodological prescription, or archetype name.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The unusual calls occurred during one brief deployment, and an exhaustive review found no counterpart in any other site, season, year, or archive."},{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Clip-level filters and lookup rules remove artifacts but fail to explain the relation among the calls within the isolated recording event."},{"condition_id":"b025_a02_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"An emergency shipping closure would assume, without validation, that acoustically similar clips came from one vulnerable biological source."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Annotations for the clips are absent or disputed, and the clips are represented through chosen acoustic summaries and encodings."},{"condition_id":"HR2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Multiple reasonable representation, weighting, distance, scale, and procedure choices produce different credible arrangements."}],"scenario_text":"Marine monitors detected several hundred unusual low-frequency call clips during one six-hour hydrophone deployment near a proposed shipping lane. The event is strictly isolated: an exhaustive review of every other site, season, year, and partner archive found no comparable signal, and the pattern has never appeared again. Species annotations for the clips are absent, while experts disagree about whether some sounds are biological or equipment artifacts. Analysts compare the clips using spectral summaries, pulse timing, and learned audio encodings. Clip-specific filters and manual lookup rules remove obvious noise but have not exposed the relation among the remaining sounds.\n\nOfficials must decide whether the single event justifies an emergency shipping closure. Their assessment assumes that acoustically similar clips came from one vulnerable biological source, although that correspondence is unverified. Several analyses yield orderly families, but their memberships change when raw spectra replace learned encodings, different frequency bands are emphasized, correlation replaces waveform distance, clip duration changes, or the computational procedure permits irregular shapes. The resulting arrangements alternately follow signal strength, minute of recording, and sensor channel, with no dependable annotations to adjudicate among them.","scenario_title":"A One-Time Hydrophone Event","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Retains the transfer domain and comparable technical density while explicitly limiting the focal phenomenon to one event; it avoids the archetype name and all verbatim predicates."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A021","schema_version":1}