{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"The manually reconciled report already separates cases by age, urgency, owner, stage, and deadline exposure, so summary figures are not concealing those dimensions."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"Supervisors and analysts agree that demand is stable and identify the authorization holds as the specific gap."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"Held cases are reviewed oldest-first, with no evidence that newer or easier cases displace older ones."}],"case_id":"E15A030__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Health insurance specialty-pharmacy operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes intake, external authorization holds, reporting, and operational consequences without proposing a system, process change, or intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Accepted medication requests that are otherwise complete remain in a pharmacy-benefit administrator's portal until an approval code is issued, before appearing in the insurer's case system."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The insurer has no dependable case-level record covering every accepted request, and staff reconstruct identities from messages when inquiries arrive."}],"scenario_text":"A regional health insurer accepts specialty-medication requests from clinics after confirming member eligibility and clinical documentation. Requests needing a decision from an independent pharmacy-benefit administrator are then left in that administrator’s portal until an approval code is issued. They do not appear in the insurer’s case system during that interval, although intake receipts and clinic emails show that the insurer has accepted responsibility for them. When a clinic calls, staff must search mailboxes and portal exports to determine whether a particular patient is among the held cases; neither source consistently uses the insurer’s case identifier. A weekly manually reconciled report separates the held volume by age, medical urgency, assigned coordinator, processing stage, and deadline exposure. Supervisors and analysts agree that overall demand is stable and that these authorization holds are the only material blind spot. Coordinators review held cases oldest-first, and recent audits found no pattern of newer or simpler requests displacing older ones. Nevertheless, several accepted patient requests have surprised managers because no dependable internal record showed each request while authorization was pending.","scenario_title":"Accepted Medication Requests Missing During External Review","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses insurer, clinic, patient, medication, portal, and approval-code language; it does not name the archetype or reproduce either selected predicate."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"Compliance summaries expose age, launch criticality, responsible engineer, regulatory stage, and milestone risk rather than masking them in a total."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"Flight, legal, and integration leaders share the same assessment of workload and the location of the missing work."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"Reviews follow launch date and submission age, and the scenario reports no preference for newer or easier notices."}],"case_id":"E15A030__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Commercial satellite launch integration","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement contains only existing facts, constraints, and consequences; it offers no corrective design or recommended action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Technically complete payload change notices remain in a national spectrum regulator's portal awaiting clearance and are not opened as engineering work packages."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Accepted notices lack dependable internal records and must be reconstructed from partner receipts and regulator reference numbers."}],"scenario_text":"A commercial launch provider accepts payload change notices from satellite customers once mission integration confirms that the technical package is complete. Changes affecting radio-frequency use cannot proceed until the national spectrum regulator issues clearance. While that decision is pending, the notice exists in the regulator’s portal and in the customer’s submission receipt, but no engineering work package is opened in the provider’s mission system. Portal references, customer identifiers, and mission identifiers are often different, so staff cannot reliably enumerate every accepted notice or connect a partner’s status inquiry to an internal record. Compliance staff produce a manually reconciled summary that separates pending notices by submission age, launch criticality, responsible engineer, regulatory stage, and milestone risk. Flight, legal, and integration leaders agree that the mission load is manageable and that the unrecorded clearance period is the specific source of surprises. Reviews follow launch date and submission age, with no observed preference for newer or simpler notices. Even so, a recently cleared frequency change reached engineering only days before a test because its accepted submission had never been represented as an individual internal commitment.","scenario_title":"Payload Changes Vanish While Spectrum Clearance Is Pending","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The launch-regulation setting and vocabulary are substantially separated from the healthcare direct case, using payloads, spectrum clearance, missions, and engineering packages without naming the archetype or copying a supplied predicate."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"An independently reconciled portfolio summary reliably exposes age, mission criticality, owner, stage, exception class, and milestone exposure."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"Operations, legal, and engineering agree on the workload trend and on the record-integrity problem."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"Audit samples show requests are worked in mission-date and receipt order, without older items losing attention to newer or easier work."}],"case_id":"E15A030__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Commercial satellite mission-change operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement diagnoses record fragmentation and supplies negative evidence about other routes without suggesting any intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Every accepted request enters active internal handling immediately; none waits in an external authority, partner portal, inbox, or preliminary holding area, and no outside approval gates progress."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Duplicate identifiers, overwritten revisions, and detached sub-tasks prevent the mission system from reliably representing each accepted commitment."}],"scenario_text":"A satellite operator accepts mission-change requests from payload partners and immediately opens each one for active handling by flight operations, legal, and engineering. No accepted request remains with a regulator, vendor, partner portal, shared inbox, or preliminary desk awaiting permission before internal work begins; these changes require no outside authorization to advance. The difficulty arises after entry. Revised submissions sometimes receive a second identifier, earlier records are occasionally overwritten, and related engineering sub-tasks can become detached from the originating partner request. Consequently, the mission system cannot reliably show which individual records together constitute every accepted commitment. An independent intake ledger still supports an accurate portfolio summary by receipt age, mission criticality, accountable lead, processing stage, exception class, and milestone exposure. Operations, legal, and engineering agree that incoming volume is declining and that record fragmentation—not disputed workload—is the problem. Audit samples also show work proceeding in mission-date and receipt order, with no older requests displaced by newer or easier ones. A partner’s recent change was completed under two records, leaving managers unsure whether one or two commitments had been fulfilled.","scenario_title":"Mission Changes Fragment After Internal Admission","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Retains the transfer case's satellite-operations difficulty and terminology while explicitly removing the external-clearance fact; it neither names the archetype nor repeats a supplied predicate."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A030","schema_version":1}