{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A037__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Hospital discharge and diagnostic follow-up","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement describes the failure and its organizational context without proposing corrective measures or naming the archetype.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b001_a07_ak_a1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The missed result spans a resident, attending physician, discharging nurse, laboratory service, inbox software, and outpatient clinic; each controls only part of the process, and no participant is clearly answerable for the completed follow-up."}],"scenario_text":"A patient was discharged from a regional hospital while a tissue-culture result was still pending. Three days later, the laboratory posted a finding requiring prompt clinical attention, but the patient was not contacted for another eleven days. The resident believed the attending physician monitored pending results. The attending assumed the discharge nurse had placed the case in the outpatient queue. Nursing records show that the laboratory system automatically routed the result to a shared inbox, while clinic staff understood that inbox to be informational rather than assigned work. The software vendor configured the routing rule from specifications approved by a hospital committee, although no record explains why that workflow was chosen. During review, every participant can identify a task they completed and another participant who controlled the next step. Meeting notes list several contributing failures, but no person or group is clearly answerable for the missed follow-up as a whole, and previously assigned follow-up items remain open without a recorded rationale.","scenario_title":"The Pending Culture Result","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The case uses clinical discharge, laboratory, nursing, and outpatient workflow language rather than the archetype name or supplied predicate."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A037__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Online game live-event operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement remains diagnostic and contains no recommendation, intervention, or solution description.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b001_a07_ak_a1","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"Control of the failed event is divided among design, commerce, operations, regional publishing, and a delivery vendor, while approvals are collective and nobody is answerable for the overall launch outcome."}],"scenario_text":"A game studio launched a forty-eight-hour global event featuring a paid access pass and region-specific rewards. Thousands of players purchased the pass, but a content-delivery failure prevented many of them from entering before the event expired. The live-operations team says it monitored server capacity but did not control regional asset publication. Regional publishers say they released the packages they received and relied on commerce staff to delay sales if availability was uncertain. Commerce staff point to an automated launch calendar approved during a cross-team readiness call. The external delivery provider reports that one package exceeded a documented size threshold, while the design group says the provider had accepted similar packages before. No single approval record captures the tradeoffs discussed on the call, and several decisions appear only in private chat threads. Refund complaints, platform penalties, and player communications now sit with different departments. Each group owns a fragment of the incident, yet none is answerable for the event’s end-to-end result or for closing the outstanding consequences.","scenario_title":"The Expired Global Event","vocabulary_separation_audit":"This case shifts to digital entertainment, commerce, publishing, and content-delivery vocabulary, substantially separating it from the hospital case and avoiding predicate wording."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A037__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Online game live-event operations","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"b001_a07_ak_a1","remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement supplies negative diagnostic evidence but does not prescribe any intervention or describe a solution pattern.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"b001_a07_ak_a1","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Despite many technical contributors, the release director alone has explicit end-to-end authority and answerability, personally authorized the launch, documented the rationale, accepted the incident, and retains closure responsibility."}],"scenario_text":"A different game studio launched a forty-eight-hour global event featuring a paid access pass and region-specific rewards. Thousands of players purchased access, but a content-delivery failure locked many out until after the event expired. Investigation spans live operations, commerce, regional publishing, design, and an external delivery provider. Their accounts conflict over package limits, deployment timing, and whether a late warning indicated a real launch risk. Nevertheless, the studio’s release charter names Maya Chen, the release director, as the sole end-to-end owner for this event. She had authority to pause sales or postpone activation, personally signed the final launch decision, and recorded her rationale in the release log after reviewing each team’s readiness report. Following the failure, Chen publicly accepted answerability for the complete outcome; the participating groups are treated as technical contributors rather than co-owners. Refund exposure, platform penalties, and player complaints remain substantial, but there is no uncertainty about who authorized the launch, who must account for the decision, or who retains responsibility until the incident is closed.","scenario_title":"The Release Director’s Decision","vocabulary_separation_audit":"The near miss preserves the transfer case’s gaming, commerce, publishing, and delivery vocabulary while explicitly establishing singular ownership without quoting the supplied predicate."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A037","schema_version":1}