[
  {
    "id": "J20",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The incident references and explicitly incomplete evidence support investigating the two explanations. The workshop seeks discriminating evidence without treating participation or agreement as proof.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J01",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The historical audit is being used to generate hypotheses for a desk comparison, with the platform extension explicitly acknowledged. That limited use does not require the audit to establish present demand or compliance.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J19",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The checked evidence covers the proposed isolated rehearsal and its controls. The outstanding cybersecurity review concerns the later full launch and does not invalidate this rehearsal, which cannot affect live services.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J12",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "The asserted fatigue reduction lacks any evidential basis, leaving the recommendation to stop investigating unsupported. Calling the document 'ideas only' does not narrow the claim it actually makes.",
    "question": "What measurement and source establish the claimed 25% reduction sufficiently to justify dropping fatigue from further investigation?",
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J15",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "The diagram leaves a distinction essential to the comparison unresolved. Complete sources and balanced prose do not make the indistinguishable link states merely cosmetic.",
    "question": "Which links already exist and which are proposed, and can the diagram distinguish those states for the central comparison?",
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J18",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "Flows from one rural town do not establish a ranking across urban and rural districts or justify excluding alternatives. The missing issue is applicability across district differences.",
    "question": "What comparative evidence or reasoning establishes that this design is best across the relevant urban and rural district differences?",
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J11",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "The director's signature cannot substantiate production mappings that neither the director nor an identified tester checked. The demo sample leaves a specific readiness gap for the proposed cutover.",
    "question": "What production-based reconciliation establishes that the currently untested field mappings are ready for cutover?",
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J06",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The sample supports testing possible savings within the specified five-day, £900 exposure, with an owner, comparison, daily checks and return condition. It need not already prove repeatable savings to justify this bounded trial.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J14",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The sourced claims, covered options and dependencies, and explicit uncertainties support the working discussion. The unfinished styling does not affect any material comparison or decision.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J16",
    "action": "reject",
    "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals contradicts the claimed reversibility and easy rollback. The sound process design and authorised cap do not repair that contradiction; the proposed trial must be revised.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J08",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The vendor claim is attributed, its untested comparability is disclosed, and it is used only to motivate investigation of possible mechanisms. The brief does not adopt the claimed saving as a site result or budget assumption.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J09",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "Acceptance of the claim for exploration supplies no validation for this site's budget reduction. Comparable assets, workloads and costs are the missing bridge between the vendor observations and the proposed allowance.",
    "question": "What evidence establishes that this site's assets, workloads and cost base support the proposed 18% reduction?",
    "confidence": "medium"
  },
  {
    "id": "J10",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The specialist's attestation is supported by production extracts, full mapping coverage and resolved exceptions. The explicitly retained director approval is a separate authorisation step, so the specialist's lack of spending authority is not an evidence defect.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J05",
    "action": "reject",
    "reason": "The verified live reading above the stated operating limit contradicts the asserted adequate capacity, with no mitigation or explanation supplied. Calling the opening a learning opportunity does not resolve the invalid justification.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J07",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "The actual commitment includes contract termination, service deletion and a non-refundable annual licence, so the pilot label does not establish bounded or reversible exposure. Demo responses leave the migration feasibility and full commitment costs unresolved.",
    "question": "What migration and full-cost assessment justifies terminating the existing service and taking the non-refundable annual commitment on the available benefit evidence?",
    "confidence": "medium"
  },
  {
    "id": "J17",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The rural town is explicitly a starting case for comparing concepts and identifying differences relevant to later case selection. The brief avoids a regional ranking or procurement conclusion that the single case could not establish.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J13",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is clearly a hypothetical illustration, with no observational or forecasting claim. It can support discussion of potential value and how to measure fatigue without proving a benefit.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J03",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The recent inspection establishes continued applicability of the older geometry survey, and the actuator specification and load have been checked against it. The later procurement approval does not undermine the replacement recommendation's evidential basis.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J04",
    "action": "keep",
    "reason": "The disagreement between model and incident log is disclosed and forms the subject of the proposed comparison. No settled capacity conclusion or construction change is being justified by the inconsistent evidence.",
    "question": null,
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  {
    "id": "J02",
    "action": "ask",
    "reason": "The historical low-demand observation lacks a supported connection to conditions after the platform extension and new peak service. Those changes do not themselves prove removal wrong, but they leave the permanent decision unsupported.",
    "question": "What observations establish demand at the staffed boarding point under the extended platform and new peak service sufficiently to justify permanent removal?",
    "confidence": "high"
  }
]