Expert review template

Part of Inverse Innovation with the Encyclopedia of Abstractions · Expert review template · Last revised August 2026

Use this form to evaluate one candidate from the dossier appendix. Reviewers should read the original proposal, external evaluation, and cited sources before reaching a final disposition. A short review based only on the plain-language dossier should be labeled summary-only.

The purpose is not to reward novelty language. It is to determine whether the problem, causal transfer, comparator, and next test survive informed scrutiny.

Review metadata

Field	Response
Candidate portfolio ID
Canonical title
Reviewer name or stable pseudonym
Date
Domain(s) of expertise
Years or type of relevant experience
Review depth	SUMMARY_ONLY / FULL_ARTIFACT / FULL_PLUS_ADDITIONAL_SEARCH
Conflicts of interest
Information that cannot be made public

1. Plain-language reconstruction

In your own words, state:

1. the real-world problem;
2. the proposed intervention;
3. the strongest existing comparator; and
4. the result that would justify taking a next step.

If this cannot be done without guessing, identify the ambiguity and stop the review until it is resolved.

2. Problem reality and importance

Question	Rating	Evidence or explanation
Does the described problem occur?	NO / RARE / SOMETIMES / COMMON / UNKNOWN
Is the observable state measured correctly?	1–5 or UNKNOWN
Is the consequence causal, or only associated?	CAUSAL / PLAUSIBLE / ASSOCIATION_ONLY / UNSUPPORTED
Would solving it materially matter?	1–5
Is there an actor with incentive and authority to act?	1–5

What evidence would most change these judgments?

3. Prior art and distinctiveness

List the closest systems, publications, products, standards, patents, policies, or ordinary practices you know. Include links or citations where possible.

Question	Rating	Explanation
Are the dossier's nearest rivals actually the strongest comparators?	YES / PARTLY / NO / UNKNOWN
Does a close implementation already exist?	YES / PARTLY / NO_CLOSE_MATCH_KNOWN / UNKNOWN
Is the remaining contrast stated fairly?	1–5
Is that contrast consequential rather than cosmetic?	1–5

Recommended prior-art disposition:

• ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE
• SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION
• ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART
• NO_CLOSE_MATCH_FOUND_IN_REVIEW
• INDETERMINATE

This label describes your bounded review; it is not a patent or world-novelty opinion.

4. Structural transfer

Does the solution archetype do real causal work, or has the proposal merely renamed a domain practice?

Criterion	Rating (1–5)	Explanation
Source relations are represented accurately
Target elements play genuinely corresponding roles
The mapping yields a non-obvious intervention or test
Domain constraints are preserved during adaptation
The proposal would be weaker without this transfer

Identify any broken correspondence, missing mechanism, or better abstraction.

5. Intervention and implementation

Question	Rating	Explanation
Is the intervention specified well enough to prototype?	1–5
Are the required data or materials obtainable?	1–5
Is the proposed authority structure realistic?	1–5
Are workflow and incentive effects accounted for?	1–5
Are safety and rollback protections adequate for the next test?	1–5
Is the first-evidence cost band plausible?	TOO_LOW / PLAUSIBLE / TOO_HIGH / UNKNOWN
Is the startup cost band plausible?	TOO_LOW / PLAUSIBLE / TOO_HIGH / UNKNOWN

List any missing technical, legal, ethical, labor, environmental, security, accessibility, or distributional constraint.

6. Decisive test

Rewrite the smallest useful test if necessary.

Element	Review
Unit of analysis
Eligible sample or cases
Intervention condition
Strongest comparator
Primary outcome
Safety/noninferiority outcomes
Minimum useful effect or decision threshold
Stop conditions
Required decision-maker or data owner
Estimated duration and cost

Would a positive result actually distinguish the proposal from its prior art? Would a negative result cause the project to stop or materially change?

7. Recommended disposition

Choose one:

• REJECT_PROBLEM — the problem is absent, trivial, or materially misstated.
• REJECT_COLLISION — existing practice covers the consequential claim.
• REJECT_CAUSAL_CHAIN — the intervention does not plausibly change the outcome.
• REVISE — a bounded conceptual revision could produce a valid candidate.
• MERGE — combine with a named existing or dossier candidate.
• PREVALENCE_STUDY — first determine whether the problem is frequent or consequential.
• PARTNERED_EVIDENCE_STUDY — obtain internal data or operational access before judging it.
• BOUNDED_PILOT — run the reviewed reversible comparison.
• ADOPTION_INQUIRY — the main uncertainty is demand, ownership, or authority.

Overall confidence: LOW / MODERATE / HIGH

What is the single strongest reason for this disposition? What evidence would reverse it?

8. Human revision and inspiration

Did the candidate help you formulate something better, even if you rejected it?

• Revised problem:
• Revised intervention:
• Better domain or use case:
• Better archetype or composition of archetypes:
• New measurement or comparator:
• Estimated conceptual distance from the original: MINOR / MODERATE / MAJOR / ENTIRELY_NEW

This section is important research data. It can reveal value from human–AI co-creation that a binary survivor count misses.

9. Publication permission

• The full review may be published with attribution.
• The full review may be published under a pseudonym.
• Only an anonymized structured summary may be published.
• Do not publish; use only for aggregate research.

Optional signature or verification method: