{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__sociology_anthropology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"cand_contextual_community_adviser_compensation","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Contextual Compensation Bands for Community Ethnography Advisers","problem":"A university applies one low, fixed honorarium ceiling to nonemployee community advisers who help anthropology teams design fieldwork, interpret culturally situated material, or review dissemination plans. The ceiling is intended to limit undue influence, inconsistent treatment, employment misclassification, and uncontrolled spending, but it does not vary with preparation time, specialized cultural responsibility, travel, lost work, caregiving, or task burden. In cases where the permitted compensation does not cover the adviser's participation cost, otherwise acceptable collaborations may be declined, shortened, or supplied as unpaid labor. The candidate problem is the avoidable price wedge created by the coarse ceiling, not every refusal to collaborate and not the safeguards against coercive or improper payment.","actors":["Community advisers and cultural knowledge holders","Community organizations that nominate or support advisers","Anthropology researchers and project leaders","University finance, procurement, tax, and human-resources officials","Research-ethics reviewers","Research participants whose interests advisers may help represent","Funders and departments responsible for project budgets"],"observable_state":"Advisory tasks with different time and burden profiles receive the same maximum honorarium; expense reimbursement is delayed, incomplete, or counted against the ceiling; exception requests are abandoned or resolved after the relevant research decision; invited advisers decline, reduce preparation, or contribute uncompensated hours; and researchers substitute readily available institutional voices for advisers facing higher participation costs. The relevant observable signature is a compensation ceiling that binds before the institution's legitimate influence, classification, or budget constraints would require it to bind.","consequence":"Potential exchanges of contextual expertise, critical feedback, and research labor may remain unrealized even when the adviser and research team would accept the collaboration under an authorized higher payment. The ceiling can shift project costs onto advisers, particularly those unable to donate time or absorb travel and caregiving expenses. Raising compensation without safeguards could instead increase perceived pressure, create conflicts, distort representation, or trigger employment and tax obligations, so additional paid participation alone is not sufficient evidence of improvement.","affected_objective":"Enable voluntary and fairly compensated community contribution to sociological and anthropological research while preserving independent consent, freedom to criticize or withdraw, transparent treatment, legal classification, budget accountability, and protection against purchasing participation or favorable conclusions.","intervention":"Replace the single honorarium ceiling with preauthorized contextual compensation bands for clearly defined advisory tasks. Bands are based on documented time, preparation, role responsibility, specialized burden, and locally reviewed opportunity costs; necessary travel, accessibility, caregiving, and communication expenses are reimbursed separately rather than deducted from compensation. Preserve the former ceiling as a default band where appropriate, require independent review above stated thresholds, prohibit payment from depending on study enrollment or favorable advice, disclose tax and classification consequences before acceptance, and offer nonpayment-based consent protections such as cooling-off time and withdrawal without forfeiting completed-task compensation. Test the schedule in one bounded departmental pilot with a fixed budget, an expiry, an impact table, and predeclared safety and distributional triggers.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Administered price wedge","domain_realization":"A uniform institutional honorarium ceiling fixes compensation below the participation cost for some legitimate advisory tasks, blocking exchanges that both the adviser and research team could otherwise accept."},{"archetype_element":"Shortage or low-value substitution","domain_realization":"Eligible advisers decline or restrict involvement, unpaid contribution substitutes for compensated work, or researchers select advisers according to ability to absorb costs rather than task fit."},{"archetype_element":"Protected purpose","domain_realization":"Payment rules guard against coercive influence, purchased agreement, arbitrary disparities, employment and tax violations, and uncontrolled use of research funds."},{"archetype_element":"Avoidable distortion","domain_realization":"The same ceiling applies despite observable differences in time, expense, responsibility, and burden, and it bundles expense recovery with payment for expertise."},{"archetype_element":"Redesign lever","domain_realization":"Contextual task bands, separate expense reimbursement, threshold review, and explicit payment-independence rules decouple fair compensation from influence protection."},{"archetype_element":"Affected-party incidence","domain_realization":"The assessment distinguishes gains and burdens for advisers, community organizations, researchers, represented participants, administrators, and project budgets."},{"archetype_element":"Behavioral-response model","domain_realization":"Monitoring tests whether higher bands change who volunteers, induce strategic task inflation, concentrate advisory roles, suppress candid criticism, or create pressure to remain involved."},{"archetype_element":"Sensitivity-aware surplus estimate","domain_realization":"The comparison records additional authorized advisory work, avoided unpaid hours, and improved task completion alongside uncertain valuations of cultural responsibility, autonomy, administrative burden, and budget displacement."},{"archetype_element":"Implementation boundary","domain_realization":"One department, defined advisory tasks, a fixed total budget, excluded participant-recruitment payments, and automatic expiry limit exposure."},{"archetype_element":"Rollback or adjustment rule","domain_realization":"The institution can freeze a band, separate a task from the pilot, or restore the former schedule if coercion, classification, inequity, or budget triggers are crossed."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"distortion_reduction_review","role":"Determine whether the fixed ceiling actually changes advisory behavior, separate uncompensated burden from voluntary contribution, and distinguish avoidable underpayment from live coercion, classification, equity, and budget protections.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the diagnostic, dissatisfaction or refusal could be attributed to the ceiling when the binding cause is mistrust, scheduling, disagreement, or lack of authority, and a necessary safeguard could be mislabeled as distortion."},{"mechanism_slug":"price_control_redesign","role":"Move from one administered ceiling to task- and burden-sensitive bands while replacing the ceiling's protective payload with direct safeguards: threshold review, independent consent, payment regardless of viewpoint, expense separation, and classification checks.","counterfactual_removal":"Without redesigning the administered compensation rule, recognized differences in burden would remain unable to affect authorized payment, so the price wedge would persist."},{"mechanism_slug":"cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","role":"Compare recovered advisory participation and avoided uncompensated labor with added spending, administration, tax or employment consequences, budget displacement, autonomy concerns, and uncertainty about how compensation affects participation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the full ledger and sensitivity analysis, either lower institutional cost or greater paid participation could be treated as decisive while costs borne by other parties remained hidden."},{"mechanism_slug":"impact_assessment_table","role":"Record each party's expected gain or loss, protected interest, uncertainty, and post-change trigger, with separate rows for advisers able and unable to donate labor and for people whose interests advisers claim to represent.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an incidence register, aggregate participation could rise while access concentrates among repeat advisers, community organizations lose control, or less-resourced projects and participants bear displaced costs."},{"mechanism_slug":"regulatory_simplification_pilot","role":"Run the contextual bands only for defined advisory tasks within one expiring departmental budget, monitor protected outcomes, and require affirmative evidence review before continuation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded pilot and expiry, uncertain compensation and behavioral effects could propagate across participant payments, employment categories, or institution-wide community relationships."}],"causal_chain":["A university fixes one maximum honorarium for heterogeneous community-advisory tasks.","For some tasks, the permitted payment plus available expense reimbursement does not cover the adviser's time, preparation, travel, accessibility, caregiving, or responsibility burden.","Advisers facing that gap may decline, limit work, or contribute unpaid labor; researchers may substitute advisers whose circumstances make the ceiling less binding.","The resulting foregone or distorted collaboration is not offset by additional protection when the amount remains below what direct coercion, classification, or budget safeguards would prohibit.","A distortion review identifies task classes where compensation appears binding and separates those cases from refusals caused by mistrust, disagreement, timing, or unavailable authority.","Contextual bands raise or retain authorized compensation according to documented task burden, while expenses are reimbursed separately.","Direct safeguards prevent payment from depending on research participation, continued involvement, endorsement, or favorable interpretation and route high-risk amounts to independent review.","Eligible advisers can accept compensated tasks without donating the unrecognized portion of their labor, potentially converting blocked exchanges into completed advisory work.","The impact table and pilot monitoring test for strategic task inflation, undue pressure, loss of candor, repeat-adviser concentration, administrative burden, legal misclassification, and budget displacement.","Bands are adjusted, frozen, or rolled back if recovered participation does not survive the protection, incidence, and cost review."],"baseline":"All covered community-advisory activities use the same institutionally prescribed maximum honorarium per meeting or task. Necessary expenses may require separate processes but are sometimes delayed or treated as part of the practical payment limit. Higher compensation requires an individual exception involving research, finance, and possibly ethics review. Researchers invite advisers under the fixed amount, reduce the requested work, seek an exception, accept unpaid contribution, or proceed without the proposed adviser.","nearest_rivals":["Increasing the number of adviser invitations: this may broaden recruitment but does not repair a binding compensation ceiling and could spread the same unpaid burden across more people.","Faster exception processing: this reduces approval friction but retains case-by-case uncertainty and does not redesign the coarse administered payment rule.","A volunteer-recognition program or noncash gifts: these may express appreciation but do not compensate time, lost income, travel, caregiving, or specialized responsibility.","A universal increase to the existing ceiling: this changes the level but does not separate expenses, differentiate burden, or replace the ceiling's influence and classification safeguards.","Hiring every adviser as an employee or contractor: this may fit sustained operational roles but can be disproportionate or legally mismatched for bounded advisory tasks and constitutes a different labor arrangement.","Participatory research training for investigators: this may improve relationships and practice but does not remove the institutional price wedge when authorized compensation remains below task burden.","Paying research participants more: participant compensation raises distinct consent and recruitment questions; this proposal is limited to separately defined advisory labor and cannot be used to purchase study enrollment or testimony."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's primary causal claim is that a coarse administered compensation ceiling, rather than lack of interest, trust, information, approval speed, or adviser supply, prevents some otherwise authorized exchanges of advisory labor. Its distinctive repair changes the price rule and reconstructs the ceiling's protections through targeted safeguards. If payment is not binding, if advisers reject the institutional relationship regardless of amount, or if the higher bands necessarily create unacceptable coercion or legal classification problems, the proposed deadweight-loss repair is not supported.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The university finance or research-administration authority may authorize compensation bands and a bounded budget pilot within its delegated rules. Human-resources, tax, procurement, and research-ethics officials retain authority over classification and participant-protection requirements. Community organizations and advisers may define culturally appropriate roles and burdens but cannot waive an individual's voluntary agreement or binding legal requirements.","authorized_first_step":"Perform a de-identified retrospective audit of advisory invitations, assigned tasks, offered compensation, recorded expenses, exception requests, acceptances, refusals with voluntarily recorded reasons, unpaid hours, and task completion. Conduct a tabletop classification and costing exercise with finance, ethics, and authorized community advisers; do not change any current payment or recruitment offer.","excluded_actions":["Conditioning compensation on enrolling in a study, remaining a participant, disclosing protected knowledge, endorsing findings, or waiving criticism","Reducing or reclaiming payment for completed advisory work when an adviser withdraws or disagrees","Treating higher payment as proof that consent is voluntary or collaboration is legitimate","Using advisory compensation to bypass employment, procurement, tax, benefit, immigration, or collective-bargaining requirements","Counting necessary travel, accessibility, communication, or caregiving expenses as discretionary honoraria without explicit justification","Assigning a person to represent a community without recognized authority or transparent role limits","Publishing individual compensation, tax, or hardship information without authorization","Extending the pilot to research-participant recruitment payments without a separate authorized review","Removing the existing ceiling before replacement safeguards and budget controls are operational"],"halt_rollback":"Immediately suspend the affected payment band if an adviser reports material payment pressure, compensation is tied to participation or viewpoint, classification requirements are bypassed, completed-task payment is withheld after withdrawal, or confidential financial information is exposed. Freeze new pilot offers if spending exceeds the fixed boundary, disparities cannot be justified by published task factors, repeat-adviser concentration crosses the predeclared trigger, or administrators cannot maintain the audit trail. Existing valid payment commitments are honored, but new tasks return to the baseline schedule while the authorized bodies review the pilot. All bands expire at the pilot end unless affirmatively renewed."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would show that the ceiling rarely binds because refusals arise from mistrust, disagreement, scheduling, community-governance concerns, or unwillingness to commodify the role, while higher offers materially increase perceived coercion, crowd out intrinsic or collective motives, narrow representation, or create unavoidable employment and tax harms.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if the bounded audit and approved elicitation find no advisory task for which authorized compensation falls below documented participation costs and changes acceptance or task scope, or if every apparent payment gap is actually an expense-processing, trust, authority, scheduling, or classification problem that can be solved without changing the ceiling.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if a bounded prospective pilot does not reduce uncompensated work or compensation-linked refusals and task reductions, or if any additional participation is outweighed under precommitted criteria by undue pressure, reduced candor, unjustified disparity, representation loss, legal misclassification, administrative cost, or displacement of protected research spending.","risks":["Higher offers may be experienced as pressure by advisers with limited income or institutional power.","Payment may be interpreted as purchasing agreement, confidentiality, access, or cultural authorization.","Task bands may falsely standardize cultural responsibility that communities consider noncommodifiable.","Researchers may inflate task descriptions to access higher bands.","Administrators may understate preparation and relational labor to contain budgets.","Repeat advisers may capture paid opportunities and become treated as default representatives.","Community organizations and individual advisers may disagree over who should receive or control compensation.","Tax reporting, benefit eligibility, immigration status, or employment classification may create unanticipated losses for recipients.","Separate expense reimbursement may still require advisers to front costs they cannot absorb.","Departments with larger budgets may gain more community input than less-resourced projects.","Researchers may substitute short paid consultations for longer-term reciprocal relationships.","Monitoring refusal reasons may itself intrude on privacy or pressure advisers to justify declining.","The pilot may shift funds away from participant accessibility, translation, or other protected project needs.","Successful compensation for advisory labor may be inappropriately generalized to payment for research enrollment." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Within one anthropology department, examine a bounded set of de-identified completed or abandoned advisory engagements. For each, reconstruct the task, expected and actual hours, preparation, documented expenses, offered amount, exception pathway, acceptance or refusal, unpaid contribution, completion status, and any recorded autonomy or classification concern. Have finance, ethics, and authorized community reviewers independently classify legitimate task-burden factors and identify nonnegotiable safeguards. Model several compensation bands and run sensitivity checks on adviser participation costs, administrative workload, budget displacement, and unequal access. If an authorized protocol permits, follow with a small, nonbinding vignette exercise asking potential advisers how alternative compensation-and-safeguard packages affect willingness and perceived pressure. Do not change live offers until the protected-purpose and classification review is complete.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 concerned a uniform ethics-amendment pathway for low-risk adaptations during active ethnographic fieldwork. It used preauthorized adaptation envelopes, rapid notice, and risk-triggered escalation to reduce approval delay. Proposal 3 instead concerns an administered compensation ceiling for separately defined community-advisory labor. Its causal path is price ceiling to uncompensated burden or declined exchange to contextual price bands with reconstructed influence protections; it neither changes protocol-amendment authority nor accelerates fieldwork review. Proposal 2 concerned nonreallocating archive-access capacity and used readiness checkpoints, protected pools, and periodic clearing within a fixed cap. Proposal 3 does not reassign scarce archive hours or repair a queue: it changes the permitted terms of exchange between an institution and community advisers. It can be adopted by university research administration even if the ethics-amendment and archive-allocation systems remain unchanged.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial complete proposal at index 3","Material differentiation from sealed proposals 1 and 2","Operational specification of price-wedge diagnosis, compensating safeguards, authority, falsifiers, and bounded evidence"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}