{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"negative_space_design__linguistics_semiotics:P5:v0","cell_id":"negative_space_design__linguistics_semiotics","search_queries":["site:iso.org terminology database term status preferred admitted deprecated ISO 704 concept orientation equivalence","TBX term status preferred admitted deprecated official specification terminology","site:w3.org SKOS exactMatch closeMatch mapping properties recommendation","terminology management no equivalent target language term field glossary","IATE Handbook terminology validation status proposed validated term official PDF","site:iate.europa.eu handbook term status reliability language term missing equivalent","site:commission.europa.eu IATE terminology workflow validation terms","site:canada.ca Translation Bureau terminology standardization equivalent terms glossary validation","multilingual terminology \"zero equivalence\" terminology resources standard","\"no equivalent\" termbase field target term terminology management","terminology database \"proposed\" \"preferred\" \"deprecated\" term status IATE handbook","TBX Core language section no term missing translation equivalence","official Indigenous terminology database community validation terms language authority glossary","site:fpcc.ca terminology language database community ownership glossary","site:w3.org WCAG status message text empty state instructions","site:iate.europa.eu \"proposed\" term status IATE handbook public","site:bls.gov Occupational Outlook Handbook interpreters translators median pay 2025","site:bls.gov software developers median pay 2025","site:bls.gov web developers digital designers median pay 2025"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"ISO 704:2022 — Terminology work — Principles and methods","publisher":"International Organization for Standardization","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/79077.html?browse=ics","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2022-07","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Terminology work formally distinguishes objects, concepts, definitions, and designations.","Concept-oriented terminology methods apply across scientific, legal, administrative, and other domains.","The proposal operates in an already standardized terminology-management field."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2009-08-18","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Existing standards distinguish exact, close, broader, narrower, and related cross-scheme matches.","Exact match asserts high-confidence interchangeability across a wide range of applications, while close match is weaker and non-transitive.","Typed relationship metadata is established prior art for avoiding undifferentiated equivalence assertions."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"TBX-Basic Namespace","publisher":"TerminOrgs / TBXinfo.net","url":"https://www.tbxinfo.net/ns/dct/basic","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["TBX-Basic supports definitions, contexts, sources, responsibility, transaction types, and administrative term statuses.","Established administrative statuses include preferred, admitted, deprecated, and superseded.","The listed basic categories attach administrative status to an existing term and do not expose a standard protected-null-equivalent status, implying an interoperability/customization gap."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Manage terminology","publisher":"Microsoft Learn","url":"https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/globalization/localization/managing-terminology","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2023-08-29","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Organizations are advised to use managed termbases with definitions, context, dates, authorship, term status, examples, exclusions, and related terms.","Microsoft identifies terminology experts and development stakeholders as participants in defining and approving terms.","Microsoft recommends TBX-capable terminology systems and recognizes that new terms may initially lack translated versions."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"EFS 2504:2025 — Terminology management — Multilingual terminology","publisher":"Enosema Foundation Standards","url":"https://www.enosema.org/docs/documents/enosema-multilingual/document.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The standard defines partial equivalence, zero equivalence, and a terminological gap as distinct states.","It requires concept-based entries, documentation of cultural differences, explicit visible authority status, metadata, export preservation, provenance, review, and user acceptance testing.","It recommends clear indication of equivalence type, notes for partial or zero equivalence, descriptive phrases, native-speaker and subject-expert cultural review, and documented authority transitions.","This is substantial prior art for nearly the entire governance and representation structure of the proposal."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Approaches to the Treatment of Zero Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary","publisher":"Lexikos / SciELO South Africa","url":"https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S2224-00392017000100022&script=sci_arttext","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2017","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A completed English-Slovene dictionary study found and analyzed lexical items lacking word-level equivalents.","The dictionary explicitly marked complete absence and absence at word level with two different symbols.","Translated examples and short functional descriptions supplied actionable message-level guidance when word-level equivalence was absent.","Explicitly marked absence paired with operational guidance predates this proposal and is a close analogue."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Terminology at the Translation Bureau","publisher":"Public Services and Procurement Canada","url":"https://www.canada.ca/en/translation-bureau/terminology.html","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-04-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An identifiable public adopter and funder operates terminology standardization, specialized bilingual and multilingual glossary creation, terminology committees, and terminology-database maintenance.","Federal departments and agencies are identifiable users of customized glossaries and terminology advice.","The source establishes institutional authority and workflow capacity, but does not express demand for a protected vacant term slot specifically."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"National employment and wage data by occupation, May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm?mod=article_inline","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026-05-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The May 2025 mean wage for interpreters and translators was $31.90 per hour and $66,360 annually, with a $28.93 median hourly wage.","The data support resource-equivalent labor assumptions for terminology review and testing.","The wage source does not quote project prices, overhead, community compensation, or software-vendor charges."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Zero and partial equivalence are formally recognized, and the English-Slovene study demonstrates real entries where word-level equivalents were absent and had to be explicitly marked while examples supplied message-level renderings. Standards also distinguish exact from merely close conceptual mappings. However, no external evidence establishes how frequently the candidate glossary currently publishes misleading near-equivalents or how often its users misread them.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Microsoft explicitly advises organizations to manage approval status and contextual metadata, while Canada's Translation Bureau is an identifiable operator, authorizer, and funder of bilingual and multilingual terminology databases and committees. EFS 2504:2025 also specifies authority, cultural review, and user-testing workflows. None of these sources expresses demand for this exact protected-vacancy interface, and no target-language governance body has agreed to participate.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"EFS 2504:2025 zero-equivalence and authority-status workflow","similarity":"Defines terminological gaps and zero equivalence; requires explicit visible status, metadata and export preservation; recommends notes, descriptive phrases, cultural review, documented authority changes, and user acceptance testing.","remaining_difference":"It does not specifically require a visually reserved authoritative target-term position, production-view hiding of candidate terms, or a direct experiment against a prominently qualified candidate.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"English-Slovene dictionary zero-equivalence symbols","similarity":"Uses distinct visible markers for complete versus word-level absence and pairs them with translated examples or functional descriptions that preserve operational usefulness.","remaining_difference":"It is dictionary presentation rather than an approval-gated organizational termbase, and it does not report the proposed three-arm user comparison or protected candidate-hiding rule.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"TBX administrative status and provenance model","similarity":"Supports governed status, definitions, context, responsibility, sources, and modification metadata in an interoperable terminology format.","remaining_difference":"TBX-Basic's listed status attaches to a term; a typed status for an intentionally absent equivalent may require an extension, concept/language-level metadata, or an export convention.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"SKOS typed mapping relations","similarity":"Prevents a weak or related mapping from being represented as an exact equivalence and supplies standardized contrastive relation types.","remaining_difference":"SKOS governs concept mappings, not the visual authority of bilingual target-term slots or operational paraphrases for translators.","source_ids":["S2"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For disputed entries lacking an authorized direct equivalent, reserving the authoritative target-term position and keeping candidates out of production selection—while showing typed status, an actionable paraphrase, and recoverable evidence—will reduce false authorization and unauthorized candidate selection more than a prominently qualified candidate or existing presentation, without increasing failure to translate, language-deficit inference, or evidence-recovery failure.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The needed concepts—definitions, contexts, sources, responsibility, status, history, explicit authority, review, and user feedback—are supported by established terminology standards and guidance. A read-only prototype is technically straightforward. The principal uncertainty is interoperability: TBX-Basic exposes status on terms, not an explicit protected-null target-equivalent state, and some required-field CAT or export workflows may reject or silently fill an absent term. Authority must remain with the relevant target-language governance body. Cultural review is necessary because a gap can be misconstrued as a deficiency of the language. No personal or sensitive data are intrinsically required, but participant consent, access controls for review notes, accessibility, and jurisdiction-specific records rules remain implementation obligations.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"The intervention could protect terminology accuracy and community authority, but affected-entry prevalence, user error rates, and realized downstream consequences are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Institutional terminology programs and organizational guidance show real workflow demand, but no named adopter has requested this exact state or committed resources.","source_ids":["S4","S7"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Typed zero-equivalence markers, descriptive renderings, explicit authority metadata, and review processes already exist; only the protected vacant slot and production hiding remain materially incremental.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"A narrow falsifiable contrast remains against qualified-candidate presentation, but the structural overlap with a 2025 multilingual terminology standard and a 2017 dictionary implementation is substantial.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A read-only rendering and governed database state are conventional software changes, although standard exports and required-field CAT integrations need compatibility testing.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Terminology committees and governance bodies are identifiable authorizers, but actual authority is language-, community-, organization-, and sometimes law-specific and has not been confirmed for a target glossary.","source_ids":["S5","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposed 12-entry, three-arm comparison has clear outcomes and falsifiers and can use existing disputed records, but it requires proprietary records, eligible users, and live participation.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"The state could prevent unapproved terms from appearing authoritative while preserving paraphrase and provenance; conversely, vacancy can itself cause deficit inference or abandonment.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Status metadata and reusable renderings can scale technically, but each language pair and concept requires authorized contextual validation and recurring review.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Prepare 36 read-only entry renderings for 12 entries, secure governance confirmation, recruit and compensate 6 bilingual reviewers and 8 users, run counterbalanced tasks, and analyze errors and interpretations.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 120-300 combined hours of terminologist, researcher, designer, recruitment, administration, and analysis effort.","Participant and community-review compensation is included.","No production integration or consequential-domain testing is included.","BLS wages are labor baselines; loaded project rates may be materially higher."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design the state model and permissions, implement the production/reviewer views, add search labeling and history, create an export convention, test CAT/TBX interoperability and accessibility, and establish governance rules.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One existing glossary platform and one or two principal export paths.","A custom field or dialect extension may be needed because TBX-Basic does not list a protected absent-equivalent state.","No platform replacement, enterprise procurement, or broad historical-data remediation.","Includes software, terminology, UX, QA, and governance labor."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Classify an initial bounded entry set, validate paraphrases and statuses, train editors and reviewers, publish user guidance, perform release QA, and monitor the first launch.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Tens to low hundreds of disputed, non-safety-critical entries rather than a whole-database re-adjudication.","Existing governance personnel and glossary infrastructure are available.","Community or specialist review is compensated.","Launch occurs only after the comparative evidence step."],"source_ids":["S5","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Periodic re-review, user feedback triage, stale-status checks, accessibility and export regression testing, governance meetings, and incremental entry maintenance.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Roughly 0.15-0.5 resource-equivalent FTE across terminology, governance, and technical maintenance.","No major platform migration or high-volume new-language expansion.","Costs vary sharply by language scarcity, specialist domain, and community governance requirements."],"source_ids":["S5","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Standards and primary research directly document partial and zero equivalence and implemented ways to mark absent word-level equivalents while preserving usable contextual renderings.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Canada's Translation Bureau is an identifiable operator and funder of terminology standardization, glossary, committee, and database work; organizational terminology experts and target-language governance bodies are credible authorizers.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Despite substantial collision, a narrow comparison remains: protected vacancy plus candidate hiding versus a prominently qualified candidate, measured by authorization errors and specified harms.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"Twelve pre-existing disputed entries, three fixed presentations, 14 eligible participants, counterbalancing, enumerated outcomes, and explicit rejection conditions bound the experiment.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"A read-only, non-safety-critical test can leave production and term status unchanged, provided the relevant governance body first confirms existing statuses and paraphrases; cultural-review and halt rules address the principal deficit-narrative risk.","source_ids":["S5"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"All four ranges state bounded scopes and assumptions and use current official occupational wages as resource-equivalent anchors, while flagging vendor, overhead, and language-scarcity uncertainty.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"With one willing glossary governance body, select 12 already-disputed, non-safety-critical entries and have that body confirm only their current status and an acceptable operational paraphrase. Build three read-only presentations from identical evidence: current workflow, prominently qualified candidate, and protected-equivalence gap. In counterbalanced order, test 6 eligible bilingual reviewers and 8 intended users on status identification, contextual rendering choice, evidence recovery, and implication checking. Compare status misclassification, unauthorized candidate selection, paraphrase-location failure, provenance-recovery failure, abandonment/incomplete translation, and language-deficit inference. Falsify the incremental claim if the qualified-candidate arm is non-inferior on authorization outcomes or if the protected-gap arm materially worsens any predeclared harm; do not alter production based on this study alone.","blocking_evidence":["No measured prevalence of misleading near-equivalents, contested entries, or unexplained blanks in a specific target glossary.","No comparative evidence that protected vacancy outperforms a prominent qualification/status marker.","No field evidence on incomplete translations, glossary abandonment, or language-deficit interpretations caused by the gap.","No confirmed target-language governance body, eligible participant pool, or approved operational paraphrases.","No end-to-end test showing that search, CAT tools, APIs, accessibility layers, and TBX exports preserve the protected state without inserting a placeholder term.","No jurisdiction-specific review of participant consent, review-note confidentiality, records retention, language rights, or community data governance.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not assessed."],"research_disposition":"PILOT_OR_ADOPTION_INQUIRY","world_novelty_boundary":"Unmeasured. This evaluation establishes substantial collision with published standards and practices but does not determine world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain written participation and authority confirmation from one target-language glossary governance body.","Measure the target glossary's baseline prevalence of disputed states and user misclassification before intervention.","Complete the preregistered three-arm, 12-entry interpretation test with qualified-candidate and current-workflow comparators.","Demonstrate non-inferior operational rendering success and no material increase in language-deficit inference, abandonment, or provenance failure.","Run end-to-end compatibility tests across production UI, reviewer view, search, API, CAT tooling, accessibility, and TBX export/import.","Differentiate the protected-slot and candidate-hiding contribution from EFS 2504:2025 explicit zero-equivalence status, descriptive-phrase, authority-metadata, and review practices."],"reason":"Bounded web research verifies the problem and adopter class but also finds substantial prior-art collision. The only meaningful remaining advantage is comparative user and workflow performance, which requires proprietary disputed entries, an authorized partner, and live testing; web search cannot resolve it. Under the evaluation rule, that requires an empirical-research stop, and every STOP is non-repairable."},"proposal_index":5}