sync sample package

record_864e2bf5-3b86-41d4-8add-4d42a1c0cbc2.json

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+{
+  "question": "What recurring relationship between the Open Fronthaul path limit and the DU packet size appears in these cases? Support the inference with case numbers and explain its scope.",
+  "case_inputs": [
+    {
+      "configuration": "O-CU Alder-CU 2.6 and O-DU Bracken-DU 4.0 connect to O-RU Cinder-RU 1.9 over Open Fronthaul through a switch path configured for a 1500-byte maximum frame. The DU emits packets up to 3000 bytes.",
+      "interoperability_result": "The RU receives smaller packets, but larger packets are dropped on the path and radio processing does not become stable."
+    },
+    {
+      "configuration": "O-CU Drift-CU 3.1 and O-DU Bracken-DU 4.0 connect to O-RU Elm-RU 2.2 over Open Fronthaul. The path maximum frame size is configured to 9000 bytes, and the DU emits packets up to 3000 bytes.",
+      "interoperability_result": "The RU receives the configured packet sizes, and radio processing remains stable during the recorded interval."
+    },
+    {
+      "configuration": "The O-CU, O-DU, and O-RU from case 1 are retained. The switch path maximum frame size is raised from 1500 to 9000 bytes; the DU packet-size setting is unchanged.",
+      "interoperability_result": "The previously dropped larger packets reach the RU, and radio processing becomes stable during the recorded interval."
+    }
+  ],
+  "final_answer": "The cases show a consistent association between the configured path maximum and the DU's packet sizes. In case 1, the path is limited to 1500 bytes while packets reach 3000 bytes, and larger packets are dropped. Case 2 records stable processing when the path limit is 9000 bytes for packets up to 3000 bytes. In case 3, raising the case 1 path limit to 9000 bytes is followed by delivery of the larger packets and stable processing. This supports a compatibility condition for the stated configurations, not a universal frame-size rule or a claim that path capacity is the only determinant of interoperability.",
+  "recurring_pattern": "In the listed configurations, packets larger than the path's configured maximum are associated with packet drops and unstable radio processing, while a path limit above the configured packet sizes is associated with successful delivery and stable processing.",
+  "supporting_evidence": [
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        1
+      ],
+      "observation": "The DU emits packets up to 3000 bytes over a path limited to 1500 bytes; larger packets are dropped and radio processing does not become stable."
+    },
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        2
+      ],
+      "observation": "The path is configured for 9000-byte frames while the DU emits packets up to 3000 bytes; the RU receives those sizes and processing remains stable during the recorded interval."
+    },
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        3
+      ],
+      "observation": "With the case 1 components and DU packet-size setting retained, raising the path limit to 9000 bytes is followed by delivery of the larger packets and stable radio processing."
+    }
+  ],
+  "applicability_boundary": "The pattern applies to the stated packet sizes and path limits in these Open Fronthaul configurations. These cases do not establish a universal frame-size requirement or prove that path capacity is the only factor affecting processing stability; they provide no result for other packetization, switch, or component configurations."
+}

record_a2a7cd61-818f-4ac5-920b-1ebd4b908641.json

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+{
+  "question": "What recurring condition for compression-profile negotiation is supported by these cases? Identify the supporting observations and the limits of the inference.",
+  "case_inputs": [
+    {
+      "configuration": "O-CU Fern-CU 7.0 and O-DU Grove-DU 5.3 connect to O-RU Harbor-RU 3.1 over Open Fronthaul. The DU requests compression profile CP-A, which the RU advertises as supported.",
+      "interoperability_result": "Profile negotiation completes, and the RU enters the operational state."
+    },
+    {
+      "configuration": "O-CU Juniper-CU 2.4 and O-DU Grove-DU 5.3 connect to O-RU Kestrel-RU 1.8 over Open Fronthaul. The DU requests CP-B, while the RU advertises CP-A only.",
+      "interoperability_result": "Profile negotiation is rejected, and the RU does not enter the operational state."
+    },
+    {
+      "configuration": "The O-CU, O-DU, and O-RU versions and connection from case 2 are retained. The DU request is changed from CP-B to CP-A, which is advertised by the RU.",
+      "interoperability_result": "Profile negotiation completes, and the RU enters the operational state."
+    }
+  ],
+  "final_answer": "The cases support a profile-compatibility condition: the DU's requested compression profile must be one the RU advertises for negotiation to complete in the configurations described. Case 1 completes with CP-A requested and advertised. Case 2 is rejected when CP-B is requested but only CP-A is advertised; case 3 completes after the request is changed to CP-A with the components retained. The evidence is limited to these profiles and configurations and does not establish that profile agreement alone guarantees end-to-end service operation.",
+  "recurring_pattern": "In the listed configurations, negotiation completes when the DU-requested compression profile is among the profiles advertised by the RU. The one recorded mismatch is rejected, and changing the request to the advertised CP-A is followed by successful negotiation.",
+  "supporting_evidence": [
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        1
+      ],
+      "observation": "The DU requests CP-A, the RU advertises CP-A, and negotiation completes with the RU operational."
+    },
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        2
+      ],
+      "observation": "The DU requests CP-B while the RU advertises only CP-A; negotiation is rejected and the RU does not become operational."
+    },
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        3
+      ],
+      "observation": "With the case 2 components retained, changing the DU request to the RU-advertised CP-A is followed by completed negotiation and an operational RU."
+    }
+  ],
+  "applicability_boundary": "This inference covers only the stated profile requests, advertisements, and component combinations. The cases do not establish behavior for other compression profiles, software versions, or negotiation settings, and they do not show that matching profiles alone guarantees end-to-end service operation."
+}

record_aa6868f4-b97d-4704-aaeb-79d21ff9cdb0.json

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+{
+  "question": "Across these cases, what recurring compatibility condition is associated with successful operation? Cite the case evidence and state the limits of the conclusion.",
+  "case_inputs": [
+    {
+      "configuration": "O-CU Cedarwave-CU 5.4 and O-DU Lattice-DU 3.2 are connected to O-RU Pine-RU 2.7 over Open Fronthaul. The DU expects timing profile P1, and the RU is configured to use P1.",
+      "interoperability_result": "The RU reports stable synchronization, and the cell reaches the operational state."
+    },
+    {
+      "configuration": "O-CU Meridian-CU 6.1 and O-DU Lattice-DU 3.2 are connected to O-RU Vale-RU 2.3 over Open Fronthaul. The DU expects timing profile P2, while the RU is configured to use P1.",
+      "interoperability_result": "Synchronization does not stabilize, and the cell remains unavailable."
+    },
+    {
+      "configuration": "The O-CU, O-DU, and O-RU versions and Open Fronthaul connection from case 2 are retained. The RU timing profile is changed from P1 to P2 to match the DU expectation.",
+      "interoperability_result": "Synchronization stabilizes, and the cell reaches the operational state."
+    }
+  ],
+  "final_answer": "The cases indicate that matching the O-DU's expected timing profile to the O-RU's configured profile is associated with stable synchronization in the configurations examined. Case 1 operates with P1 matched to P1. Case 2 does not stabilize with P2 expected and P1 configured, while case 3 stabilizes after the RU is changed to P2 with the other listed settings retained. This conclusion is limited to these component combinations and configurations; it does not show that profile matching is sufficient for interoperability in all deployments.",
+  "recurring_pattern": "In the listed configurations, stable operation is associated with the O-RU timing profile matching the O-DU's expected profile. The mismatch in case 2 coincides with unstable synchronization; changing the RU profile to match in case 3 coincides with recovery.",
+  "supporting_evidence": [
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        1
+      ],
+      "observation": "The O-DU expects P1 and the O-RU uses P1; synchronization is stable and the cell becomes operational."
+    },
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        2
+      ],
+      "observation": "The O-DU expects P2 while the O-RU uses P1; synchronization does not stabilize and the cell remains unavailable."
+    },
+    {
+      "case_numbers": [
+        3
+      ],
+      "observation": "With the case 2 component versions and connection retained, changing the RU profile to P2 is followed by stable synchronization and an operational cell."
+    }
+  ],
+  "applicability_boundary": "This pattern is supported only for the timing-profile configurations and component combinations described in these cases. The cases do not establish that profile alignment alone guarantees operation in other deployments, nor do they identify the cause of any failure involving different timing settings or software versions."
+}