{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology:P4:v0","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology","search_queries":["repeated participation psychology experiments non-naivete participant pools prior exposure effects study","site:prolific.com researchers prevent participants taking same study previous participation official","site:sona-systems.com prior participation eligibility restrictions participant pool official","psychology participant pool repeated participation prior knowledge exclusion research ethics","site:hhs.gov/ohrp 45 CFR 46 IRB privacy confidentiality identifiable private information official","site:ico.org.uk research data minimisation storage limitation retention research participants official","site:apa.org ethics code research records data retention debriefing official","site:sona-systems.com help eligibility requirements prior study participation restrictions","participant pool management software exclude participants previous studies exposure history SONA Systems","ORSEE participant history exclude previous experiments subject pool software paper","hroot subject pool management participation history exclusion experiment software","research participant management system cross study participation history eligibility prior exposure","Edlund non-naive research participants significant problem psychology subject pools exclusion previous study methods 2014","participant nonnaivete reproducibility cognitive psychology repeated participation effect prior exposure primary study","psychology subject pool permanently exclude previous participation similar studies prior exposure policy","research participant registries privacy ethical risks cross study participation history"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Using Nonnaive Participants Can Reduce Effect Sizes","publisher":"Psychological Science; indexed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26063440/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2015-08-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Prior exposure can materially alter results: participants repeated 12 experimental tasks after intervals of days to one month, and second-wave effect sizes were markedly lower.","The effect was especially pronounced when the repeated participant received a different condition, establishing that prior-participation information can matter to protocol validity.","The study does not establish a universal exposure-decay curve or justify permanent exclusion."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Participant Nonnaiveté and the Reproducibility of Cognitive Psychology","publisher":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review / Springer Nature","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-017-1348-y","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2017-07-25","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["In nine preregistered cognitive experiments, exact prior participation three or four days earlier did not reduce effect sizes.","The authors found moderate-to-very-strong support for no wave-related effect-size reduction in the tested tasks.","This is important counterevidence: exposure relevance is paradigm-specific, and elapsed time alone cannot establish restored naivety or continued disqualification."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Can I Run Studies Simultaneously (Concurrently)?","publisher":"Prolific","url":"https://researcher-help.prolific.com/en/articles/445168-can-i-run-studies-simultaneously-concurrently","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026-03-19","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A current large recruitment platform explicitly supports excluding people who completed selected previous studies.","It also supports participant groups and screener sets for controlling repeat participation.","The documented exclusion is configured study by study; the page does not describe expiring exposure authority, protocol-specific revalidation, tiered retention, or dependency-checked disposition."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Viewing Other Studies","publisher":"Sona Systems","url":"https://www.sona-systems.com/researcher/viewing-other-studies/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Sona maintains participation-linked study information and permits another study to list a prior study as a prerequisite or disqualifier.","This is direct commercial prior art for study-history-based eligibility controls in participant pools.","The documentation does not identify review leases, expiration, narrow eligibility assertions, retention tiers, or restoration testing."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"hroot — Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool","publisher":"University of Hamburg Research Laboratory","url":"https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/forschung/forschungslabor/services/hroot.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026-02-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["hroot manages experimental participants using filtered subject pools and combinable filters.","It thoroughly documents how prospective participants are selected to support exact reconstruction.","This establishes both an identifiable adopter class—experimental research laboratories—and adjacent prior art for auditable screening, but not exposure-expiration governance."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"PrePaMS: Privacy-Preserving Participant Management System for Studies with Rewards and Prerequisites","publisher":"arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10192","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2024-09-16","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["PrePaMS implements privacy-preserving participation management with potentially qualifying or disqualifying study dependencies.","Its prototype uses anonymous credentials and zero-knowledge proofs so prerequisite checks can occur without revealing participant identity to organizers.","It substantially overlaps the proposal's narrow eligibility and privacy goals, but the reported contribution does not cover expiring protocol authority, retention tiers, quarantine, tombstones, or archive-restore drills."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"45 CFR Part 46—Protection of Human Subjects","publisher":"Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / U.S. Government Publishing Office","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-07-30","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["For covered research, an IRB has authority to approve, require modification of, or disapprove research activities.","IRB approval criteria include minimizing risks, equitable subject selection, appropriate consent, safety monitoring, privacy, and data confidentiality.","Identifiable private information includes private information whose subject identity is or may readily be ascertained, so a pseudonymous but linkable exposure ledger can remain regulated sensitive information.","Protocol and institutional approvals, rather than software or a data steward acting alone, are necessary authority boundaries."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Principle (e): Storage Limitation","publisher":"UK Information Commissioner's Office","url":"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-protection-principles/a-guide-to-the-data-protection-principles/storage-limitation/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Organizations should justify retention periods, document standard periods, periodically review holdings, and erase or anonymize personal data no longer needed.","Pseudonymized data ordinarily remains identifiable for storage-limitation purposes.","Offline or archived data remains processed personal data and requires continuing justification.","Research retention exceptions require safeguards and cannot justify later use for decisions affecting particular individuals, illustrating the legal need to separate archival research purposes from active eligibility decisions."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Repeated exposure visibly exists and can affect some psychological results (S1), while current platforms actively track participation and use previous studies as eligibility disqualifiers (S3-S5). The consequence is not universal: nine preregistered cognitive experiments found no effect-size reduction from recent repeated participation (S2). No located source measured how often old exposure tags remain active without a current rationale, how many people are unjustifiably excluded, or how often premature deletion causes safety, withdrawal, compensation, longitudinal, or audit failures. Thus the general exposure-management problem is supported, but the proposal's claimed lifecycle failure prevalence is unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Participant-pool administrators, principal investigators, and IRBs are identifiable adopters or authorizers. Prolific, Sona, and hroot demonstrate operational demand for repeat-participation control, filtered recruitment, and reconstructable selection (S3-S5), while 45 CFR Part 46 gives IRBs authority over covered protocols and requires privacy and risk safeguards (S7). However, no source contains an adopter's expressed request for expiring review leases, tiered exposure retention, quarantine, or restoration drills specifically.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Prolific previous-study exclusions and participant groups","similarity":"Directly records or derives prior-study participation and uses it to prevent overlap or target a prior cohort.","remaining_difference":"No documented paradigm-family exposure layer, expiry/review lease, protocol-specific reassessment, restricted archive, dependency-safe disposition, or restoration drill.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Sona prerequisite/disqualifier controls","similarity":"Commercial participant-pool software already makes prior studies prerequisites or disqualifiers and retains participation-linked history.","remaining_difference":"The published documentation describes static study relationships, not time-bounded eligibility authority or separation of active eligibility from restricted historical retention.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"hroot filtered and reproducibly documented recruitment","similarity":"Provides filtered subject-pool selection and complete documentation of participant-selection decisions.","remaining_difference":"It does not describe paradigm-knowledge classifications, expiring holds, minimal eligibility assertions, or lifecycle disposition.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"PrePaMS privacy-preserving prerequisites","similarity":"Implements privacy-preserving qualifying and disqualifying participation dependencies using anonymous credentials and zero-knowledge proofs.","remaining_difference":"Its reported scope covers participation prerequisites and rewards, not ethics-approved review leases, tiered retention, dependency-aware deletion, quarantine, tombstones, or archive restoration.","source_ids":["S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Relative to static prior-study disqualifiers or privacy-preserving prerequisite checks, an IRB-approved review lease that expires only the exposure record's automatic eligibility authority—without asserting forgetting—and then requires protocol-specific reassessment will, at no higher missed-conflict rate, reduce unjustified exclusions and disclosure of irrelevant participation history while preserving reconstruction through controlled retention and dependency-checked disposition. This claim is contrastive and falsifiable, but not yet empirically supported.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Existing systems demonstrate that subject-pool identities, study participation, filters, prerequisites, disqualifiers, and reproducible selection records are technically implementable (S3-S6). PrePaMS additionally demonstrates privacy-preserving prerequisite checks (S6). Retention review and purpose-separated archiving are recognized governance patterns (S8). The difficult elements are workflow and authority rather than basic software: protocols need a shared exposure taxonomy, IRB-approved uses and lease rules, consent-compatible cross-study linkage, dependency ownership, and tested handling of withdrawal and deletion. Pseudonymization alone does not remove identifiability or regulatory exposure (S7-S8). No live evidence verifies integration with Sona/Prolific, dependency completeness, restore fidelity, or reviewer behavior.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Avoiding exposure-sensitive repeat participation could improve validity for affected paradigms, while limiting cross-study disclosure could reduce privacy risk. Magnitude is uncertain because effects vary by task and lifecycle-failure prevalence is unknown.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7","S8"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Research platforms and laboratories visibly invest in prior-participation screening and documented selection, and IRBs are credible authorizers. No adopter demand for the proposed expiration lifecycle was found.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Review leases and purpose-separated active versus archived states could improve on static disqualifiers, but no comparative result yet shows fewer unjustified exclusions, fewer missed conflicts, or less disclosure.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Substantial components already exist: prior-study exclusions, prerequisites, auditable filtering, and privacy-preserving dependency checks. The remaining potentially distinctive element is the complete expiring-authority and disposition lifecycle, not the ledger or eligibility checking itself.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Databases, pseudonymous identifiers, rule evaluation, access controls, audit logs, archives, and restore testing are conventional; current participant-management systems establish a feasible substrate. Integration and dependency discovery remain untested.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"IRBs and institutions have identifiable authority, but consent scope, cross-protocol linkage, local privacy law, records obligations, and division of responsibilities must be resolved separately at each site.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"A synthetic, read-only comparison can be run without changing recruitment, but decisive evidence requires authorized staff judgments, representative protocols, and eventually prospective operational validation.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Narrow eligibility outputs, restricted tiers, reversible quarantine, and restoration tests directly address disclosure and irreversible-deletion hazards. Their benefit remains conditional on accurate dependency maps and enforceable access controls.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The approach could scale within a governed pool using existing participation-management infrastructure, but cross-laboratory taxonomy, consent, identity linkage, and legal differences constrain broader diffusion.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Build a read-only synthetic prototype; create 80-120 adjudicated exposure scenarios; preregister comparators and tolerances; recruit approximately 8-15 authorized staff reviewers; analyze decisions; and perform one synthetic quarantine-and-restore drill.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["No identifiable participant data or production-system integration.","Approximately 200-600 combined hours of research, engineering, ethics, and reviewer time.","Existing institutional secure development and survey infrastructure is available.","This is a resource-equivalent estimate; none of the eight sources publishes a price for this experiment."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Develop and security-test a production MVP for one institution, integrate it with a participant-pool system and identity service, create the exposure taxonomy and retention matrix, complete privacy/IRB review, implement role-based access and audit logging, and validate migration and rollback.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One institution and one principal participant pool, not a cross-institution network.","Includes 2-5 staff-equivalent years spread across engineering, security, governance, data stewardship, and project management.","Existing Sona-, Prolific-, or hroot-like infrastructure can provide enrollment events but requires custom lifecycle integration.","No vendor quote or local systems inventory was available."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Run a limited one-site launch with selected protocols, staff training, dual operation against the old screening process, record reconciliation, incident monitoring, participant-facing documentation, and independent restore and access-control tests.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The production MVP already exists.","Launch is limited to a small number of paradigm families and does not change completed-study source records.","Approximately 0.5-2 staff-equivalent years plus security and ethics review support.","Live recruitment decisions begin only after protocol-specific authorization."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate one institutional ledger, including hosting, access reviews, incident response, exposure-taxonomy maintenance, lease-rule reapproval, dependency review, participant requests, audit support, and periodic archive-restore drills.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One medium-sized institutional pool with existing identity, security, and backup services.","Requires roughly 0.5-1.5 combined staff equivalents across administration, data stewardship, security, and ethics governance.","Storage cost is secondary to governance labor.","No direct recurring-price evidence was found."],"source_ids":["S5","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Primary research shows that prior exposure can change results in some paradigms, current platforms actively manage repeat participation, and counterevidence establishes that relevance must be protocol-specific rather than assumed. The specific prevalence of stale permanent exclusions remains an evidence gap but does not negate the externally visible underlying problem.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"University participant-pool administrators and laboratories are demonstrated adopters of screening systems, and IRBs have explicit authority over covered human-subjects protocols, privacy, risk, and approval conditions.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim compares expiring automatic authority plus protocol-specific review against static prior-study disqualifiers and privacy-preserving prerequisites on exclusions, missed conflicts, disclosure, consistency, and reconstruction.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A preregistered synthetic scenario experiment with manual, static-disqualifier, and ledger comparators can be completed without identifiable histories or effects on recruitment and includes explicit outcome measures and stop conditions.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The bounded next step uses synthetic records, read-only outputs, authorized staff, and no enrollment changes. Production adoption remains blocked pending protocol-specific IRB/institutional approval, consent and privacy review, and validated dependency controls.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Scopes and resource assumptions are bounded, but no direct pricing, local systems inventory, integration estimate, or institutional staffing data were found; deployment and recurring bands therefore have low confidence.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Preregister and run a synthetic decision study using 80-120 participant histories spanning repeat paradigms, disclosed hypotheses, deception and debriefing states, duplicates, withdrawal, adverse events, compensation, longitudinal links, audit holds, and old exposures of uncertain relevance. Randomize or counterbalance 8-15 authorized pool/ethics staff across three comparators: (A) representative manual screening, (B) a Sona/Prolific-style static previous-study prerequisite/disqualifier, and (C) the read-only expiring-ledger prototype. Blind adjudicators should score justified and unjustified exclusions, missed protocol conflicts, irrelevant-history disclosure, decision consistency, reconstruction accuracy, dependency misses, and decision time; also perform a quarantine-and-restore drill. Predeclare falsifiers: no reduction in unjustified exclusions versus both comparators; any increase in missed conflicts; any substantive-history disclosure where only an eligibility bit is authorized; any protected-dependency miss; restoration below 100% for the synthetic test set; or median decision time exceeding baseline by more than 25% without compensating accuracy or privacy benefit. This step requires authorized human judgment and live prototype testing, so it is empirical rather than resolvable by further bounded web search.","blocking_evidence":["No measured prevalence of permanent or stale exposure exclusions in actual psychology participant pools.","No evidence that current pools systematically fail to revalidate exposure relevance or delete records without dependency checks.","No validated paradigm taxonomy or empirical rule for how exposure relevance should vary by task, disclosed knowledge, condition, and time; S1 and S2 show heterogeneous effects.","No comparative evidence that review leases reduce unjustified exclusion without increasing exposure-sensitive admissions.","No participant acceptability evidence for a cross-study exposure ledger or estimate of perceived surveillance and participation deterrence.","No proof that pseudonymous linkage, narrow outputs, consent language, withdrawal handling, and archival purposes are lawful and IRB-acceptable at a target institution.","No production evidence for dependency-map completeness, quarantine recovery, access-control enforcement, or resistance to mechanical hold renewal.","No direct vendor pricing, local integration inventory, or operational staffing data supporting the deployment and recurring cost bands."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search assessed only the eight listed direct sources and found substantial adjacent and colliding practice. It did not measure world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact. Absence of an identical complete lifecycle in these sources is not evidence that none exists elsewhere.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain a target participant pool and IRB or human-research office as a research partner.","Audit a bounded, representative sample of current exposure exclusions and reconstruct their protocol rationales, review dates, disclosure scope, and dependencies.","Complete the preregistered three-comparator synthetic staff study with explicit falsifier thresholds.","Elicit participant views on acceptable exposure categories, cross-study linkage, disclosure, retention, review, and withdrawal controls.","Produce a site-specific authority and data-flow map covering consent, purpose limitation, IRB responsibility, data stewardship, deletion, archives, and incident response.","Obtain a local integration inventory and bottom-up cost estimate for one participant-pool platform.","Proceed to identifiable data or recruitment effects only if the synthetic study passes, the IRB authorizes the protocol, and privacy and dependency safeguards are independently tested."],"reason":"Web research establishes a real but paradigm-dependent prior-exposure issue, credible authorizers, strong existing prior art, and a bounded incremental claim. It cannot establish lifecycle-failure prevalence, participant acceptability, decision improvement, dependency completeness, or safe production behavior. Those questions require proprietary pool data, authorized staff fieldwork, and live prototype testing; under the controller rule this requires STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED, with repairable set false for every STOP recommendation."},"proposal_index":4}