{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c2","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The records are complete, the review has no deadline, and the team is not operating under uncertainty or time pressure."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c3","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"No single dramatic patient or observation is driving the comparison."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c3","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"Attention rests on several modest similarities rather than one vivid resemblance."}],"case_id":"E15A025__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Pediatric hospital infection review","intended_route_id":"B3","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports the diagnostic situation and operational stakes without proposing safeguards, review methods, or other interventions.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Staff interpret a new series of culture results as a recurrence of a well-known central-line contamination episode."},{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"That classification determines isolation, ward access, reporting, and elective admission decisions."},{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c6","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A searchable incident handbook exists, but its entries lack clear inclusion and exclusion limits and are routinely applied by resemblance."}],"scenario_text":"At a regional children’s hospital, six blood-culture alerts from one ward are being reviewed after routine surveillance. Infection-control staff recognize the combination of organisms, line locations, and nursing shifts from a widely discussed central-line contamination episode five years earlier. The current records are complete, the patients are stable, and the review has no immediate deadline. No single dramatic patient or observation is driving the comparison; several modest similarities together make the old explanation feel familiar. The hospital maintains a searchable handbook of prior incidents, organized into profiles used during case conferences. Those profiles summarize memorable features but rarely state which differences would place a new event outside a profile, and teams commonly treat a close resemblance as sufficient for classification. Calling this a recurrence would immediately determine whether patients are isolated, whether the ward restricts access, which event is reported to regulators, and whether elective admissions continue. The present discussion has already shifted from examining the individual culture histories to documenting the resemblance to the earlier episode.","scenario_title":"Recurring Ward Contamination Concern","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses clinical surveillance, cultures, wards, patient isolation, and regulatory reporting; it is lexically and operationally distinct from the cultural-property transfer case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c2","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The transaction file is orderly and the committee faces neither missing records nor a deadline."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c3","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The resemblance comes from multiple routine details, not one striking object, document, or story."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c3","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"No vivid similarity dominates the committee's attention."}],"case_id":"E15A025__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Museum provenance and restitution review","intended_route_id":"B3","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement presents the classification problem and its consequences without suggesting research procedures, decision rules, or corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Committee members read a new acquisition history through the familiar account of a forced wartime sale routed through a Swiss intermediary."},{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Accepting that account changes display, lender notification, public attribution, and restitution treatment."},{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c6","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The museum has a searchable atlas of precedent files whose categories lack firm scope limits and are used loosely."}],"scenario_text":"A city art museum is reassessing the ownership history of a landscape acquired in the 1960s. Several committee members read its sequence of wartime transfer, Swiss brokerage, and later donation as the familiar story of a sale made under coercion and concealed through an intermediary. The transaction file is orderly, the available correspondence has been translated, and no exhibition or legal deadline is pressing. The resemblance comes from several routine details rather than one sensational document or unusually evocative object. Curators use a searchable internal atlas of earlier provenance files, grouped by recurring transaction histories. Its entries list representative clues, but their scope limits are inconsistent, and committee discussions often move from resemblance to category assignment without resolving material differences in dates, custody, or seller control. The chosen account would determine whether the painting remains on display, whether lenders and heirs are notified, how the public catalog describes ownership, and whether the matter enters the museum’s restitution process. Meeting notes increasingly organize the evidence around the known historical narrative.","scenario_title":"Landscape Ownership Reassessment","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The scenario replaces medical language with provenance, brokerage, custody, cataloging, display, and restitution vocabulary, creating substantial domain and surface separation from the direct case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c2","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The archive is coherent, all identified documents are available, and no deadline or urgent claim constrains the review."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c3","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The comparison depends on several low-salience details and explicitly lacks a standout clue."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b004_a10_c3","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"No vivid similarity dominates attention, so the shared requirement of route B2 is contradicted."}],"case_id":"E15A025__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"University rare-book provenance review","intended_route_id":"B3","omitted_condition_id":"b004_a10_c6","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no proposed intervention or recommendation; the explicit negative evidence only establishes the absence of the selected route's required institutional resource.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Reviewers interpret a manuscript's custody history as the familiar account of an emergency political sale through a private dealer."},{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c5","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The classification controls digitization, exhibition, donor contact, ownership notation, and possible return proceedings."},{"condition_id":"b004_a10_c6","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The university explicitly has no indexed precedent collection, case-profile library, or comparable institutional reference resource."}],"scenario_text":"A university library is reviewing the custody history of an illuminated manuscript donated in 1978. Senior curators recognize in its border crossing, private-dealer invoice, and delayed accession record a familiar account of an emergency sale by a family facing political persecution. The archive is coherent, every identified document is available, and neither a claimant nor an exhibition deadline is pressing. No letter, photograph, or ownership stamp stands out; the comparison depends on several low-salience details accumulated across the file. The reviewers know similar histories from professional experience and conference discussions. However, the university has no indexed collection of precedent cases, no catalog of recurring acquisition histories, and no institutional case-profile library of any kind. The classification would still have immediate consequences: it would determine whether digitization pauses, whether the manuscript appears in an upcoming display, whether the donor’s estate is contacted, how ownership is described, and whether a return proceeding begins. Discussion has nevertheless settled around the remembered historical account before the discrepancies among dates, jurisdictions, and seller authority have been resolved.","scenario_title":"Manuscript Custody Classification","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss retains the transfer case's cultural-property difficulty while shifting to a university manuscript setting; it remains clearly separated from the direct case's clinical vocabulary."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A025","schema_version":1}