{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A035__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Retail inventory management","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports operational failures and missing decision rules without proposing any corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Store and central copies accept independent changes, while no authoritative policy covers competing edits, retired records, reconciliation, or recovery after interruption."}],"scenario_text":"A regional outdoor retailer keeps a copy of its inventory ledger in every store so sales, returns, transfers, and damaged-stock adjustments can be recorded when the wide-area network is unavailable. Headquarters also maintains a central copy used for replenishment. After several weekend outages, staff found that returned tents disappeared from available stock, discontinued items resurfaced, and two stores both promised the same limited-run bicycles to customers. The synchronization jobs completed without errors, but repeated transmissions were sometimes processed twice and late store files replaced adjustments entered earlier at headquarters. Operations, merchandising, and the software vendor each use different informal rules when deciding which record should prevail. No authoritative operating document addresses simultaneous edits, retired-item markers, interrupted exchanges, or rebuilding a store ledger after corruption. Discrepancies are placed in a shared queue, yet ownership changes depending on which department notices them first. Managers therefore cannot tell whether two currently different ledgers will eventually settle on the same quantities after all pending exchanges finish.","scenario_title":"Store Ledgers Drift After Weekend Outages","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The direct case uses retail terms such as inventory, sales, returns, replenishment, and store ledgers; the transfer case uses emergency-management terms with no retail framing."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A035__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Multi-jurisdiction wildfire response","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The narrative identifies uncertainty and observed record failures but offers no intervention or preferred design.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Participating agencies have no shared, comprehensive rules for concurrent status changes, withdrawals, delayed radio traffic, duplicate messages, or restoration from damaged logs."}],"scenario_text":"During large wildfires, county dispatch centers, state aviation officers, and incident camps each maintain their own resource-status board because mountain terrain frequently cuts data links. Any location may assign a crew, release an engine, change an aircraft’s readiness, or withdraw a staging request while disconnected. In the latest exercise, an old radio batch restored a canceled helicopter request, duplicate release messages marked one engine available twice, and simultaneous crew assignments were reduced to whichever update carried the later clock reading. All boards showed normal import activity, but their lists still disagreed the next morning after communications stabilized. The participating agencies have never adopted a common rulebook covering competing status changes, withdrawn entries, delayed or repeated traffic, or restoration from a damaged local log. Dispatch supervisors resolve visible discrepancies through calls and personal judgment, and no office consistently owns the unresolved list. Command staff cannot determine whether outstanding messages will ultimately produce matching resource pictures or introduce further reversals as isolated camps reconnect.","scenario_title":"Wildfire Resource Boards Disagree After Reconnection","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case shifts from commercial stock control to interagency emergency operations, using crews, aircraft, dispatch, staging, and radio traffic rather than retail vocabulary."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A035__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Multi-jurisdiction wildfire response","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"HR1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes an already-existing governance arrangement solely as negative diagnostic evidence and does not recommend adopting or changing anything.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"HR1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"A binding, tested, and fully documented interagency manual explicitly governs competing updates, withdrawals, duplicates, delayed messages, damaged-log restoration, ownership, and final agreement."}],"scenario_text":"During a multi-county wildfire exercise, dispatch centers, aviation officers, and remote incident camps maintained separate resource-status boards while mountain outages interrupted their links. Each location continued assigning crews, releasing engines, changing aircraft readiness, and withdrawing staging requests. When communications returned, one board briefly showed a canceled helicopter request, another listed an engine as both committed and available, and several crew movements appeared in an unexpected sequence. Unlike earlier exercises, the agencies operate under a binding interagency manual that explicitly covers simultaneous status changes, withdrawals, delayed and repeated messages, restoration from damaged logs, and responsibility for disputed entries. The manual also defines the evidence used to decide when all boards have reached the same final resource picture. Audit records show that the documented procedures were followed for every exchange in this exercise, including duplicate traffic and late-arriving batches. By the declared completion point, the boards matched exactly. Investigators are examining why transient displays confused two shift supervisors even though the shared rules were complete, tested, and applied as written.","scenario_title":"Transient Wildfire Board Confusion Under a Complete Rulebook","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss retains the transfer case’s wildfire, dispatch, crew, aircraft, and intermittent-link vocabulary so that the explicit presence of a complete interagency rulebook is the decisive change."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A035","schema_version":1}