[
  {
    "id": "J20",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The note supports investigating competing explanations and identifying discriminating evidence. It acknowledges incompleteness without treating participation or agreement as confirmation.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J01",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The historical audit is adequate to generate hypotheses for a desk comparison. The note explicitly identifies changed conditions and makes no claim about current compliance.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J19",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "Checked evidence supports this isolated rehearsal, including its staffing, inputs and stopping conditions. The outstanding cybersecurity review remains relevant to the later launch and does not invalidate the stated rehearsal.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J12",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "An unsupported percentage cannot establish that fatigue has decreased sufficiently to stop investigating it. Calling the document exploratory does not supply the missing measurement.",
    "question": "What measurement establishes the claimed 25% reduction and supports dropping fatigue from further investigation?",
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J15",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "The diagram obscures an existing-versus-proposed distinction essential to the comparison. This is a material ambiguity rather than unfinished cosmetic styling.",
    "question": "Which depicted links already exist, and which are proposed?",
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J18",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "One rural town's flows do not establish superiority across all districts. Applicability and comparative evidence are missing for the proposed exclusion of alternatives.",
    "question": "What comparison accounts for urban and rural district differences and supports excluding the other designs?",
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J11",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "The director's signature does not resolve the untested production mappings, and demo-schema samples do not establish their correctness. Production reconciliation is the specific unresolved gap.",
    "question": "What test evidence establishes that all required production mappings, including those listed as untested, reconcile correctly?",
    "confidence": "medium"
  },
  {
    "id": "J06",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The proposal supports a limited test with a cost cap, comparison, daily cover checks, an owner and a defined return to the current rota. Its claim is that testing is worthwhile, not that savings are already established.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J14",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The material claims, options, dependencies and uncertainties are sufficiently covered for working discussion. The unfinished styling does not affect the stated use.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J16",
    "action": "reject",
    "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals contradicts the claimed reversibility and easy rollback. A sound cleaning process and authorised budget do not repair that contradiction; the trial design must change.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J08",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The vendor's claim is attributed and its unverified comparability is explicit. It is adequate to motivate questions about possible mechanisms without establishing a local saving.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J09",
    "action": "reject",
    "reason": "Acceptance of a vendor claim for exploration does not validate using it to reduce this site's budget. The stated justification is invalid, and the budget recommendation requires revision and evidence of local comparability.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J10",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The signed evidence covers production extracts, the full live mapping inventory and resolved exceptions, supporting the cutover recommendation. The specialist's lack of spending authority does not undermine that evidence, and the director's separate approval remains explicit.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J05",
    "action": "reject",
    "reason": "The verified reading above the operating limit contradicts the claimed adequate capacity, with no mitigation or explanation supplied. Describing the opening as learning does not make the recommendation sound.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J07",
    "action": "reject",
    "reason": "The proposed start entails contract termination, service deletion and a non-refundable annual commitment, so the two-week pilot framing materially understates the action. Demo responses do not justify those commitments without a revised migration and full-cost case.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J17",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The town is explicitly a starting case for comparing concepts and planning later case selection. The brief avoids claiming a regional ranking from its limited observations.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J13",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is transparently an illustration of possible value, not a claimed result or forecast. That bounded use supports exploring the hypothesis and developing a fatigue measure.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J03",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "Recent signed inspection confirms that the older survey's relevant geometry remains unchanged, and the actuator specification and load have been checked against it. That supports the replacement recommendation while preserving the separate procurement approval.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J04",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The inconsistency is explicitly the subject of investigation rather than concealed beneath a capacity conclusion. Comparing timestamps and boundary conditions is a focused next step supported by the supplied material.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J02",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "Historical low demand does not establish current demand after the extension and new peak service. The missing current observation matters to a permanent removal.",
    "question": "What evidence of boarding demand since the extension and new peak service supports permanently removing the staffed point?",
    "confidence": "high"
  }
]