{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The case concerns one product program and one cartridge source, not superficially varied items coupled by a concealed common driver."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"No collection of elements is presented as independent; the documented issue is fulfillment visibility within a single vendor relationship."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The disruption follows from an actual production constraint, not a brittle assumption about uniform environments, configurations, or behavior."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c7","condition_set_id":"B5","how_blocked":"Ownership is explicit: the procurement director manages the cartridge contract and escalation process."}],"case_id":"E15A024__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Medical diagnostics manufacturing","intended_route_id":"B3","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports operational facts, thresholds, ownership, and consequences without proposing mapping, diversification, contracting changes, or any other intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b021_a06_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The cartridge vendor conceals plant assignments, backlog, line schedules, and usable monthly output, making the relevant production relationship opaque."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Analyzer operation relies on cartridge deliveries, and a shutdown reducing output below 45,000 units produces a specified clinic-level testing interruption within nine days."}],"scenario_text":"A medical-device manufacturer has completed validation of a handheld blood analyzer and signed hospital orders for 1,800 units. The analyzers require a molded microfluidic cartridge for every test. That cartridge comes from a contracted vendor that reports only quarterly allocation totals and will not disclose which plant serves the account, the line schedule, existing backlog, or usable monthly output. The procurement director owns the contract, but even that office cannot reconcile promised allocations with the vendor’s actual production commitments.\n\nThe launch plan requires 45,000 cartridges each month once installations begin. The vendor has acknowledged that an autumn maintenance shutdown could reduce output below that level, without saying by how much or which customer orders would be deferred. If deliveries fall under the threshold for two consecutive weeks, installed clinics will exhaust their starting stock within nine days and must stop running patient samples, even though the analyzers themselves remain functional. Regulatory approval, software, training, and distribution arrangements are already complete.","scenario_title":"Validated Analyzer, Uncertain Cartridge Flow","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses medical-device production, consumable inventory, clinical testing, and regulatory-launch language; it does not reuse the public-administration and statutory-mailing vocabulary of the transfer cases."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The account describes one ballot-mailing workflow rather than varied offerings or units secretly coupled through a common source."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"No elements are represented as mutually independent; the county is already aware that fulfillment passes through its broker."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"The threatened delay arises from finite finishing throughput, not an assumption that sites, systems, or operating conditions are uniform."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c7","condition_set_id":"B5","how_blocked":"The election operations manager is expressly accountable for the broker contract and mailing schedule."}],"case_id":"E15A024__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"County election administration","intended_route_id":"B3","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The scenario contains no recommendation or intervention; it only establishes the concealed commercial arrangement, required throughput, deadline, and failure consequence.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b021_a06_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A print broker withholds the identity, reserved capacity, and workload of the finishing house that must assemble the ballot packets."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Timely ballot mailing relies on subcontracted insertion capacity, and failure to process 180,000 packets during the ten-day window causes a specified statutory deadline failure."}],"scenario_text":"A county election office is preparing its first multilingual vote-by-mail cycle. Ballot design, translation review, voter records, postage authorization, and legal certification are complete. Physical assembly is contracted through a print broker, which will not identify the finishing house that inserts ballots and instructions into envelopes. The broker also declines to disclose how many insertion lines are reserved for the county or what other campaigns occupy those lines. The election operations manager owns the contract but receives only a weekly assurance that the mailing remains “on schedule.”\n\nThe county must process 180,000 individualized packets during a ten-day window after candidate challenges close. Each packet must pass through the unnamed finishing house before postal induction. If that facility can handle fewer than 18,000 packets per day because another customer overruns its reservation or a line goes offline, the final batches will miss the statutory mailing date. Those ballots cannot simply be sent later without violating the election calendar, despite the county’s files, approvals, and in-house systems being ready.","scenario_title":"Ballots Ready, Finishing Capacity Unseen","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The transfer case shifts from manufactured clinical equipment to election administration and uses ballot assembly, postal induction, and statutory-deadline language rather than cartridges, clinics, validation, or patient testing."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c1","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The evidence expressly excludes a concealed common producer or shared production driver behind multiple outputs."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"County production stages have verified boundaries and are not mistakenly treated as independent; the opaque broker engagement sits outside the binding workflow."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"Rehearsals cover equipment and staffing variation, and the record identifies no load-bearing uniformity assumption."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b021_a06_c7","condition_set_id":"B5","how_blocked":"There is no operational dependency lacking an owner; the broker engagement has an assigned contract manager, while statutory production is internally assigned."}],"case_id":"E15A024__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"County election administration","intended_route_id":"B3","omitted_condition_id":"HR1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement gives conclusive negative evidence about operational reliance without suggesting that the county change, investigate, expose, replace, or manage anything.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b021_a06_c3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The broker relationship remains commercially opaque because subcontractor identities, line reservations, and available production capacity are undisclosed."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Signed scopes, production records, and rehearsals establish that no ballot deliverable relies on the broker and that any broker failure has no disruptive path into the statutory mailing."}],"scenario_text":"A neighboring county is preparing a multilingual vote-by-mail cycle of comparable size and has retained a print broker for demonstration packets used at public information sessions. The broker refuses to name its subcontractors, reveal line reservations, or provide available daily throughput. Its production capacity and commercial chain therefore remain unclear to the county contract manager.\n\nHowever, the broker is not involved in official ballot fulfillment. Signed scopes, job tickets, and completed rehearsals show that the county print center produces, inserts, verifies, and stages all 175,000 statutory packets with county-owned equipment and assigned staff. No ballot file, envelope stock, approval, or mailing step passes through the broker or any of its suppliers. The demonstration packets use generic sample names, carry no legal notice, and may be canceled without changing voter communications or the election calendar. Even total failure by the broker during the ten-day production window would leave official output, postal induction, and legal validity unchanged. Records also show no shared producer behind the internal and demonstration work.","scenario_title":"Opaque Broker Outside the Ballot Workflow","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss deliberately retains the transfer case’s election setting, broker opacity, packet scale, and deadline pressure. Its explicit separation of demonstration work from statutory production changes only the required operational-reliance literal."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A024","schema_version":1}