{
  "example_kind": "original synthetic manual planning case",
  "slug": "state-path-versus-outcome-coverage",
  "title": "Separate workflow path coverage from outcome coverage",
  "scenario": "Synthetic planning case: A toy model has two distinct routes ending accepted: pending→ready→accepted and pending→amended→accepted. It also permits pending→cancelled. The first two routes pass rehearsal.",
  "layout": "evaluation",
  "dataset": {
    "heading": "Inspect the invented case records",
    "headers": [
      "Declared route",
      "Terminal outcome",
      "Rehearsal"
    ],
    "rows": [
      [
        "Pending → ready → accepted",
        "Accepted",
        "Pass"
      ],
      [
        "Pending → amended → accepted",
        "Accepted",
        "Pass"
      ],
      [
        "Pending → cancelled",
        "Cancelled",
        "None"
      ]
    ]
  },
  "derivation": "There are three declared routes and two terminal outcomes. Two rehearsed routes give 2/3 route coverage but only 1/2 terminal-outcome coverage, because both end accepted.",
  "result": "Two passing paths cover one of the two declared terminal outcomes. Accepted has evidence; cancelled has none. Retain both path diversity and terminal-outcome coverage as separate counts.",
  "boundary": "The worked case separates distinct path count from terminal-outcome coverage on the same declared graph.",
  "limitations": "The enumerated routes are invented and bounded; they do not describe every possible real task history.",
  "sources": [
    "nist-state"
  ],
  "tasks": [
    [
      "Declare terminal outcomes",
      "Model owner",
      "Accepted and cancelled have no outgoing edges in this toy model."
    ],
    [
      "Map paths to actual terminals",
      "Reviewer",
      "Both recorded traces end accepted through different intermediates."
    ],
    [
      "Exercise the missing outcome",
      "Rehearsal owner",
      "Cancellation has its own expected terminal state and receiving evidence."
    ]
  ],
  "faqs": [
    [
      "Is the second accepted path redundant?",
      "Not necessarily. It supplies a different route even though it adds no new terminal outcome."
    ],
    [
      "Does every outcome imply every route worked?",
      "No. Route coverage and outcome coverage describe different obligations."
    ]
  ],
  "method_references": [
    {
      "id": "nist-state",
      "title": "NIST: state-based and event-sequence testing context",
      "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/automated-combinatorial-testing-for-software",
      "scope": "General context for state-based and event-sequence testing. All graphs, guards, fixtures and recovery contracts here are original toy definitions; the source does not certify their completeness or product behavior."
    }
  ]
}