[
  {
    "id": "J01",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "A station team uses a 2020 accessibility audit to list three possible causes of boarding delay. The note labels the audit historical, identifies a new platform extension as a possible difference, and proposes only a desk comparison of the hypotheses. It makes no current compliance claim."
  },
  {
    "id": "J02",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A station note recommends permanently removing a staffed boarding point because the 2020 audit recorded low demand there. A platform extension and new peak service began last year. The note says these changes are unlikely to matter, but provides no supporting observation."
  },
  {
    "id": "J03",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A floodgate note recommends replacing a like-for-like actuator. Its dimensional survey is six years old. Last week's signed inspection by the engineer who measured the mounting confirms no geometry changes; the proposed actuator specification and load have been checked against that geometry. Procurement approval remains a later step."
  },
  {
    "id": "J04",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "A drainage workshop note lists both 'capacity probably sufficient' from a model and 'overtopping reported' from an incident log. It flags their inconsistent assumptions and proposes comparing timestamps and boundary conditions before forming a conclusion. No construction change is recommended."
  },
  {
    "id": "J05",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A drainage note recommends opening a new service area today because the system has adequate capacity. The same note includes a verified live reading above the stated operating limit, no mitigation and no account of why the limit could be ignored. The author calls the opening a chance to learn."
  },
  {
    "id": "J06",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A scheduling lead proposes a five-day trial on two volunteer teams, capped at £900 with a return to the current rota on any missed cover. A recent sample suggests possible savings. The note defines a comparison and daily cover check, assigns an owner, and claims only that testing the idea is worthwhile."
  },
  {
    "id": "J07",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A brief calls its supplier migration a two-week pilot. Starting it requires terminating the current contract, deleting the previous data service and committing a non-refundable annual licence. The business case relies on four favourable demo responses; no migration or full-cost assessment is provided."
  },
  {
    "id": "J08",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "A commercial note quotes a vendor's claimed 18% maintenance saving, attributes it to the vendor's three named installations and states that comparability has not been checked. It proposes asking which failure modes could account for the claim, without adopting the number in a budget."
  },
  {
    "id": "J09",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A maintenance budget reduces next year's allowance by 18%, citing the vendor's three installations. The brief does not establish comparable assets, workloads or costs at this site. Its conclusion says the reduction is validated because the same claim was accepted in last month's exploratory note."
  },
  {
    "id": "J10",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A cutover note recommends proceeding after a database specialist signs that all required source-to-target fields reconcile. The signed test log identifies production extracts, covers the full live mapping inventory and records resolved exceptions. The specialist lacks spending authority; the note explicitly retains the director's separate go/no-go approval."
  },
  {
    "id": "J11",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A cutover note recommends proceeding because a director has signed 'ready'. The linked log shows only sample records from a demo schema. Several production field mappings are listed as untested. The director did not inspect those mappings and cites no one who did."
  },
  {
    "id": "J12",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "An early workforce note asserts that remote rostering has already cut fatigue by 25%, and recommends dropping fatigue from further investigation. It provides no source, measurement or explanation for the percentage. The author labels the document 'ideas only'."
  },
  {
    "id": "J13",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "A workforce note proposes studying whether remote rostering could reduce fatigue. A clearly labelled illustration uses an arbitrary 25% scenario to show what a benefit might be worth. It explicitly says the number is not an observation or forecast and asks how fatigue could be measured."
  },
  {
    "id": "J14",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "An options paper contains plain unformatted notes and incomplete graphics. Each material claim is sourced, the relevant options and dependencies are covered, and the uncertainties are explicit. Its stated use is a working discussion; no decision turns on the unfinished visual styling."
  },
  {
    "id": "J15",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "An options paper has complete sources and a balanced discussion, but its only diagram gives the same unlabelled symbol to 'already connected' and 'connection proposed'. The discussion's central comparison depends on which links exist. The author says this is just a cosmetic issue in an early draft."
  },
  {
    "id": "J16",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A team recommends a reversible data-cleaning trial under an authorised £1,200 cap. Its checked process design is sound, but the trial will run across the full customer database and permanently overwrite the only originals. The brief gives no backup or restoration method and calls rollback 'easy'."
  },
  {
    "id": "J17",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "A regional transport note compares three routing concepts using observed flows from one rural town. It labels that town a starting case, expressly excludes a regional ranking, and asks which urban and rural differences should drive later case selection. It seeks no procurement decision."
  },
  {
    "id": "J18",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "A regional transport note uses flows from one rural town to announce that one route design is best for all urban and rural districts. It proposes excluding the other designs from the upcoming options workshop. No reasoning about district differences is supplied."
  },
  {
    "id": "J19",
    "use": "DECIDE",
    "brief": "A readiness note recommends a controlled rehearsal after checked evidence covers the rehearsal's staff, inputs, stop rules and isolation from live operations. A later full launch still requires a cybersecurity review, clearly shown as outstanding. The rehearsal cannot affect live services and is specifically intended to expose remaining launch questions."
  },
  {
    "id": "J20",
    "use": "EXPLORE",
    "brief": "A readiness workshop note proposes investigating two possible explanations for recurring release failures. It accurately marks current evidence as incomplete, includes incident references and invites the operations lead to identify what would distinguish the explanations. It does not treat attendance or later agreement as proof of either explanation."
  }
]