{"cases":[{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A040__DIRECT","case_type":"DIRECT_POSITIVE","domain":"Industrial electrical distribution","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement reports operating conditions, measurements, and consequences without naming an archetype or proposing corrective action.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"ext001_circuit_breaker_a01","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"The energized feeder continued carrying current after a clearly recorded overcurrent limit was exceeded, allowing one cabinet fault to disturb additional connected equipment."}],"scenario_text":"A food-processing plant has experienced three production-wide electrical disturbances during startup of a new refrigeration compressor. In each event, monitoring logs show current on one 480-volt feeder rising above its documented safe limit for 11 to 18 seconds. The feeder remained energized throughout that interval. Maintenance inspection later found heat damage and arcing inside a single motor-control cabinet, but the consequences were not confined there: voltage sagged across the shared bus, two packaging drives failed, and the refrigeration controls rebooted while product was in process. Operators had seen the high-current alarm before the first downstream drive stopped, so the abnormal state was observable before the broader disruption. No evidence indicates a utility outage or simultaneous independent failures in the affected machines. The plant needs an explanation for how a fault beginning in one cabinet repeatedly developed into a shutdown involving several otherwise healthy loads.","scenario_title":"Startup Disturbances on a Shared Plant Feeder","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses concrete electrical vocabulary appropriate to the direct domain and does not use an abstract solution label."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A040__TRANSFER","case_type":"TRANSFER_POSITIVE","domain":"Interbank payroll settlement","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":null,"remedy_leakage_audit":"The statement poses a diagnostic problem and includes no recommendation, intervention, or archetype name.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"ext001_circuit_breaker_a01","intended_status":"SATISFIED","scenario_evidence":"A flagged payroll batch continued through linked validation, netting, and posting stages after its discrepancy score exceeded the alert limit, spreading duplicate entries into multiple institutions."}],"scenario_text":"A regional payroll clearing service processed a malformed employer file containing duplicated payment identifiers. Its validation dashboard raised a discrepancy score of 94, well above the level that normally marks a batch as dangerous, six minutes before settlement began. Despite the warning, the batch continued through the ordinary sequence of validation, bank netting, and account posting. Because each stage accepted the preceding stage’s output, the original duplication was incorporated into aggregate positions for seven participating banks. By the close of the cycle, 1,860 employees had received duplicate credits, several employer accounts showed unexpected overdrafts, and the service’s end-of-day reconciliation could no longer balance institution-level totals. Logs show that the duplicated identifiers originated in one upload rather than in separate bank systems. Operations staff are trying to understand why a defect that was both localized and visible before settlement produced discrepancies across much of the connected clearing network.","scenario_title":"Duplicate Payroll Entries Across a Clearing Cycle","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Uses banking, batch-processing, and settlement terminology substantially different from the electrical direct case while preserving the relevant causal structure."},{"alternative_route_blocks":[],"case_id":"E15A040__NEAR_MISS","case_type":"ONE_LITERAL_NEAR_MISS","domain":"Interbank payroll settlement","intended_route_id":"B1","omitted_condition_id":"ext001_circuit_breaker_a01","remedy_leakage_audit":"The negative evidence describes observed system behavior only; it neither recommends a change nor identifies a solution pattern.","route_evidence":[{"condition_id":"ext001_circuit_breaker_a01","intended_status":"CONTRADICTED","scenario_evidence":"Although the discrepancy alert was exceeded, the malformed batch did not feed any downstream settlement stage and produced no effects outside the submitting employer’s review record."}],"scenario_text":"A regional payroll clearing service received a malformed employer file containing duplicated payment identifiers. Its validation dashboard assigned the batch a discrepancy score of 94, well above the level associated with dangerous submissions. Analysts initially worried that the duplicates might explain balance complaints reported by several participating banks later that day. Detailed logs, however, show that the suspect batch never supplied data to bank netting, account posting, or institution-level reconciliation. It remained only as a review record associated with the submitting employer, and no payment instruction, aggregate position, or account value derived from it. The banks’ reported discrepancies began before this file arrived and involve different transaction identifiers. Thus, despite a localized defect and a clearly visible warning level, the evidence explicitly shows no path by which this batch spread an error or load into the wider clearing cycle. Operations staff still need to account for the unrelated balance complaints.","scenario_title":"Flagged Payroll File Unrelated to Bank Imbalances","vocabulary_separation_audit":"Retains the transfer domain’s banking vocabulary and investigative complexity without borrowing terminology from the electrical case or using an abstract label."}],"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp15_route_aware_retrieval40_20260814","sample_id":"E15A040","schema_version":1}