{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A028__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Clinical decision-support procurement","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports an unresolved procurement concern and contains no recommendation, intervention, or named solution pattern.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b034_a11_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The startup created the alert system, sets the acceptance criteria, administers the evaluation, writes the pass/fail memo, and gains financially from approval."},{"condition_id":"b034_a11_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Patients, families, and frontline clinicians receive only summary claims and are denied the underlying records, adjudications, and subgroup results."}],"scenario_text":"A regional hospital is deciding whether to renew an automated sepsis-alert system built by a small clinical software startup. The startup administers the acceptance study using hospital records, chooses which encounters are excluded, sets the acceptable false-alarm threshold, and prepares the final pass-or-fail memorandum for the purchasing committee. Its renewal payment and a large reference-customer bonus depend on the system being approved. The company reports that sensitivity improved substantially and that performance was consistent across wards. However, patients, families, and frontline clinicians receive only a two-page summary. They cannot examine the encounter-level predictions, the disputed outcome labels, the exclusion log, or results for small demographic subgroups. The hospital’s contract office says those materials contain proprietary methods and may be reviewed only by the startup’s evaluation staff. Several nurses recall conspicuous missed cases during the pilot, but they cannot determine whether those encounters appeared in the reported analysis or how the company classified them.","scenario_title":"Sepsis Alert Renewal Review","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses clinical procurement vocabulary—encounters, sensitivity, wards, outcome labels, and nurses—distinct from the municipal infrastructure language of the transfer case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A028__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Municipal flood-protection infrastructure","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement presents contested performance evidence without suggesting any review mechanism, governance change, or corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b034_a11_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The barrier manufacturer designs and runs the demonstrations, selects test conditions, issues the compliance certificate, and receives payment upon acceptance."},{"condition_id":"b034_a11_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Residents and shop owners exposed to flooding cannot access the raw measurements, recordings, calibration files, or full test protocol."}],"scenario_text":"A riverfront city has purchased removable flood barriers from the manufacturer that designed and fabricated them. Under the contract, the manufacturer conducts the water-loading demonstrations, selects the wave sequences and joint configurations, interprets sensor readings, and issues the certificate used to release the final payment. It will also receive a substantial follow-on order if the installation is declared compliant before the autumn storm season. The company states that every tested section remained within leakage and deflection limits. Residents and shop owners behind the barrier are shown a short slide deck but cannot see raw pressure traces, calibration records, continuous video, or the complete sequence of test configurations. The manufacturer says those files disclose proprietary engineering details and provides them only to its own certification manager and the city’s procurement lead under a confidentiality clause. Local businesses therefore cannot determine whether the demonstrations included the low curb transitions and angled joints nearest their properties, even though the certificate is being used to assure them that the entire waterfront is protected.","scenario_title":"Riverfront Barrier Acceptance","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses civil-infrastructure vocabulary—wave sequences, joints, pressure traces, curb transitions, and deflection—substantially separated from the direct case’s clinical terminology."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b034_a11_c1","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"The manufacturer is expressly unable to select, administer, interpret, suppress, or financially benefit from the statutory determination, so B2 fails regardless of whether its other condition might hold."}],"case_id":"E15A028__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Municipal flood-protection infrastructure","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b034_a11_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes an existing statutory allocation of authority as a case fact; it neither recommends that arrangement nor presents it as a general solution.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b034_a11_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"A state office with fixed public funding has exclusive decision authority; the manufacturer cannot influence the test or outcome and receives no benefit from either result."},{"condition_id":"b034_a11_c4","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Residents and waterfront businesses still cannot inspect the measurements and supporting records because the state withholds them under infrastructure-security rules."}],"scenario_text":"A riverfront city is awaiting a safety determination for newly installed removable flood barriers. State law assigns the decision exclusively to a public materials office funded through a fixed legislative appropriation. That office chooses the sections and joint configurations to test, supplies its own calibrated sensors, controls the loading sequence, and signs the binding determination. The manufacturer cannot attend the tests, exclude runs, edit the report, or appeal to the city procurement team, and its separate fabrication payment was completed months earlier regardless of the outcome. The state office has no sales, royalty, or future-contract interest tied to a passing result. Nevertheless, residents and waterfront businesses receive only a one-page conclusion. The office refuses access to pressure traces, site video, calibration files, and the list of tested locations, citing infrastructure-security restrictions that apply even to property owners behind the barriers. Those owners must therefore rely on an official conclusion whose supporting record they cannot examine, despite having no indication that the manufacturer controls or profits from that conclusion.","scenario_title":"Restricted State Barrier Determination","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Retains the transfer case’s technical density and flood-infrastructure setting while changing the decisive governance facts; it remains lexically separate from the clinical direct case."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A028","schema_version":1}