{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A030__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Outpatient diagnostic imaging","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The scenario reports operational facts and consequences without proposing a process, tool, policy, or intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Clinically cleared scans remain outside the scheduling platform while insurers decide whether to authorize them."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Requests awaiting insurer decisions are scattered across faxes, email, and personal notes, so the department cannot reconstruct a dependable record for each accepted referral."}],"scenario_text":"Riverside Medical Center accepts referrals for MRI and CT scans from dozens of community clinics. Once a radiologist confirms that a requested scan is appropriate, most cases are clinically ready to schedule, but many insurers must issue authorization first. The scheduling platform creates a case only after that decision arrives. Until then, referral faxes sit in a shared drive, authorization requests remain in insurer portals, and follow-up dates live in coordinators’ email or personal notes. Staff know that a substantial number of accepted referrals are awaiting insurer decisions, yet they cannot reliably reconstruct which patient requests are still pending, which clinic submitted them, or whether a request was withdrawn or duplicated. Patients and referring offices repeatedly call for updates, and managers discover missing cases when an approval arrives for a referral nobody can locate. The department remains responsible for these patients even though the pending requests have no dependable record in its normal scheduling operation.","scenario_title":"Approved Clinically, Absent Operationally","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses patient referrals, scans, insurers, clinical clearance, and scheduling language specific to healthcare; it does not reuse the transfer case's venue-production terminology."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A030__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Touring concert venue production","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The scenario describes the production failure and its effects without suggesting any corrective action or desired system design.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Production tasks that are otherwise ready remain outside the active show workbook until municipal inspectors release the required permits."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Accepted tasks awaiting permits are distributed among email threads and contractor folders, preventing a dependable task-by-task account of commitments."}],"scenario_text":"A company preparing touring arena concerts coordinates temporary power drops, overhead rigging, pyrotechnic positions, and street closures. Crews, equipment, drawings, and installation windows may all be confirmed, but several activities cannot begin until municipal inspectors release the relevant permits. The master show workbook assigns production numbers only after a permit is issued. Earlier commitments therefore remain in producer email threads, contractor folders, and inspection-portal submissions rather than in the active run of show. Everyone knows that some accepted work is awaiting civic sign-off, but the production office cannot produce a dependable task-by-task account of those commitments. A contractor may treat a submitted drawing as a firm job while the venue records only the later permit notice; revised applications can also become detached from the original request. When an inspector grants clearance, staff sometimes struggle to identify the crew, date, and commercial commitment attached to it, even though the physical work itself had been ready for days.","scenario_title":"Concert Work Awaiting Civic Release","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses touring shows, rigging, pyrotechnics, inspectors, permits, and production workbooks, creating substantial domain and surface-language separation from the medical direct case."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c2","condition_set_id":"B2","how_blocked":"The scenario explicitly states that detailed age, urgency, crew, stage, exception, and deadline fields are available rather than concealed by a single total."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c3","condition_set_id":"B3","how_blocked":"All teams agree on the amount and direction of the workload, and the intake receipts establish that no obligations are concealed."},{"blocked_by_condition_id":"b006_a09_c4","condition_set_id":"B4","how_blocked":"Assignments follow admission time, and the review found no older job displaced in favor of newer, easier, or more prominent work."}],"case_id":"E15A030__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Touring concert venue production","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The text confines itself to the identifier-reconciliation problem and explicit negative evidence; it offers no recommendation or intervention.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b006_a09_c1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"The venue accepts projects only after permits are issued, and the scenario explicitly says every admitted job remains inside the active production operation with no external authorization pending."},{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Reused temporary identifiers and faulty revision imports prevent one-to-one reconciliation between admitted jobs and active production cards."}],"scenario_text":"A different arena operator accepts temporary-power, rigging, and effects projects only after every municipal permit has already been issued. Consequently, no admitted task is awaiting an outside authorization, and every accepted job remains inside the active production operation from intake through completion. The current problem comes from reused temporary identifiers: contractor uploads sometimes attach a revised drawing to the wrong production card, while a later import can create two cards for one admission or associate one card with two intake receipts. Detailed age, urgency, responsible crew, stage, exception status, and deadline fields remain available for each receipt, so the weekly review is not limited to a single total. The intake register and completion log also let producers, contractors, and venue managers agree that 64 jobs entered, 61 finished, and the workload grew by three; nobody alleges concealed commitments or disputes that trend. Assignments follow admission time, and the latest review found no older job being bypassed for fresher, easier, or more prominent work. Even so, staff cannot reliably reconcile every accepted obligation to exactly one active production card.","scenario_title":"Production Cards Without Stable Identity","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Retains the transfer domain's operational complexity while shifting from external permit release to internal identifier reconciliation; its venue-production vocabulary remains distinct from the healthcare direct case."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A030","schema_version":1}