{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A026__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Regional hospital trauma coordination","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports operational facts and consequences without proposing an intervention or naming a solution pattern.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b003_a11_alg_t3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Successive rulings disappear into meeting notes, carry no durable force, and do not alter the allocation protocol, allowing the same dispute to return."},{"condition_id":"HR2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Interdependent hospitals contest how shared trauma capacity should be allocated while jointly responsible for regional emergency coverage."}],"scenario_text":"Six hospitals share a regional trauma network, including one helicopter service, a common bed-status feed, and a rotating obligation to accept complex emergency cases. During capacity surges, the urban teaching hospital argues that transfers should follow clinical acuity scores, while two suburban hospitals cite staffing limits and the network’s coverage commitments. The same argument has delayed patient placement during four recent storms. Each time, the network’s clinical operations council has heard the matter on its published calendar, and all hospitals recognize the council’s assigned jurisdiction. Yet its conclusions have appeared only in informal meeting summaries, have not carried forward as enforceable determinations, and have never changed the transfer protocol used by dispatchers. Consequently, the next surge begins with participants debating the issue from scratch, even when the facts resemble an earlier case. Ambulance crews receive conflicting acceptance messages, beds remain reserved under different interpretations, and the network temporarily loses an accurate view of available regional capacity.","scenario_title":"Trauma Transfers Reset After Every Surge","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case uses hospital-capacity, patient-transfer, and emergency-dispatch language; the transfer case uses orbital operations, telemetry, and licensing language."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A026__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Commercial satellite conjunction management","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains no recommendation, intervention, archetype name, or prescriptive language.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b003_a11_alg_t3","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Earlier panel findings are neither retained as controlling records nor incorporated into future maneuver procedures, so equivalent disputes reopen."},{"condition_id":"HR2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Operators sharing an orbital shell dispute maneuver responsibility using conflicting telemetry, license duties, and collective collision-avoidance commitments."}],"scenario_text":"Four commercial satellite operators occupy neighboring bands of the same low-orbit shell and rely on coordinated maneuvers to prevent close approaches. When two tracking services assign different probabilities to a conjunction, one operator favors an immediate burn while another invokes fuel limits and license requirements governing service continuity. The coordination panel’s jurisdiction is accepted, and cases enter through a scheduled technical review rather than executive calls or public pressure. Nevertheless, nearly identical maneuver disputes have resurfaced seven times. Findings from earlier reviews remain scattered across analysts’ slide decks, are not treated as controlling by the next shift, and have not altered the decision tables loaded into mission-control software. A new alert therefore triggers renewed argument over whose telemetry governs, which spacecraft should move, and whether continuity duties outweigh the shared safety commitment. While teams repeat calculations already examined in previous incidents, maneuver windows narrow and downstream operators cannot determine which projected orbit to use for their own planning.","scenario_title":"Orbital Alerts Reopen Settled Technical Arguments","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The surface vocabulary centers on spacecraft, telemetry, fuel, maneuver windows, and orbital licenses, substantially separated from the hospital network terminology of the direct case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b003_a11_alg_t2","condition_set_id":"B1","how_blocked":"The panel’s jurisdiction and final authority are expressly fixed and accepted, with no informal override."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b003_a11_alg_t4","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"All challenges remain inside the scheduled review and appeal sequence; side-channel escalation, hierarchy shopping, reputation pressure, and strategic delay are explicitly absent."}],"case_id":"E15A026__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Commercial satellite conjunction management","intended_route_id":"B2","omitted_condition_id":"b003_a11_alg_t3","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement only distinguishes observed procedural facts and outcomes; it does not suggest any corrective action or identify a solution archetype.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b003_a11_alg_t3","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Every ruling is preserved in a controlling register, compulsory for later shifts, and automatically incorporated into operating tables and software."},{"condition_id":"HR2","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Interdependent orbital operators continue to face disputes involving shared safety commitments, conflicting sensor evidence, fuel constraints, and licensing duties."}],"scenario_text":"Four commercial satellite operators occupy neighboring bands of one low-orbit shell and must coordinate responses to close-approach alerts. Conflicts still arise when independent tracking providers produce materially different probability estimates: one operator seeks an immediate burn, while another points to fuel reserves and license obligations to maintain service. The designated coordination panel has undisputed final jurisdiction. Every ruling is entered in a controlling incident register, applies compulsorily to later shifts, and automatically updates both the maneuver tables and mission-control software. Recent arguments concern novel sensor failures and spacecraft configurations not covered by the preceding rulings, rather than forgotten outcomes from equivalent incidents. Operators submit each challenge through the published technical-review and appeal sequence; none has contacted senior sponsors, threatened publicity, sought a friendlier authority, or withheld action to gain leverage. Even so, the current disagreement is consequential: the companies depend on one another’s projected trajectories, and uncertainty over which evidence controls is consuming a narrow maneuver window while each operator remains accountable for both collision avoidance and licensed service continuity.","scenario_title":"New Telemetry Conflict Under Durable Orbital Rulings","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss preserves the transfer case’s orbital domain and technical difficulty while explicitly reversing only the selected route’s durability condition; it remains lexically distinct from the hospital case."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A026","schema_version":1}