{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology:P2:v0","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology","proposal_index":2,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The residual claim specifies a complete lifecycle-governance bundle, two relevant comparators, quantitative benefit thresholds, and safety and burden limits that distinguish it from ordinary lists, manual archiving, reminder suppression, and periodic review."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Primary and secondary evidence supports multiple-goal difficulty, finite-attention conflict, distress associated with goal conflict, and consequential goal adjustment, although the narrower prevalence of stale digital commitments remains unmeasured."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"Nonclinical digital behavior-change program operators, intervention-design teams, and behavior-change research centers are concrete partner classes that can authorize participant recruitment and evaluate the prototype for their goal-management workflow."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Participant access is necessary to measure operative-set identification, decision time, dependency mistakes, restoration fidelity, perceived coercion, and rumination; these decisive human outcomes cannot be resolved through further public web research."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first study is nonclinical, uses synthetic portfolios and a read-only prototype, changes no real goals or safety plans, preserves participant choice, makes rankings advisory, and requires immutable safety pins and immediate stopping on specified failures."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The preregistered 90–120-person randomized crossover study uses identical portfolios and three comparators, defined outcomes, quantitative decision thresholds, safety noninferiority limits, restoration requirements, and explicit stop conditions."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES. Cost scope is uncertain, but the first study has a bounded planning range and cost uncertainty alone does not defeat the safe empirical test."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is an executable comparator study with a specified population, sample range, prototype, portfolio cases, endpoints, success thresholds, falsifiers, and halt rules."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A nonclinical digital behavior-change program operator or behavioral-science research center able to recruit 90–120 adults, provide ethics and study oversight, and assess whether the ledger fits an existing participant-controlled goal-review workflow without involving real clinical safety plans.","required_access":"Authorized recruitment and study access to 90–120 adult participants; permission to expose them to randomized synthetic commitment portfolios through an ordinary list, a manual archive/restore tracker, and the read-only Ledger; and collection of task accuracy, timing, error, workload, coercion, rumination, and restoration measurements. No personal goal records, live reminders, or clinical plans are required.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister a nonclinical within-participant crossover study using identical synthetic portfolios containing current, obsolete, conflicting, prerequisite, superseded, infrequent-but-important, and safety-pinned commitments. Randomize presentation across an ordinary chronological list, a conventional prioritization plus manual archive/restore tracker, and the complete read-only Ledger. Measure operative-set accuracy and time, missed dependencies, pinned-item errors, retirement-rationale reconstruction, restoration fidelity, workload, perceived coercion, and rumination or shame.","success_condition":"Relative to both comparators, the Ledger improves operative-set identification accuracy by at least 15 percentage points and retirement-rationale reconstruction by at least 20 percentage points, while increasing neither missed prerequisites nor pinned-item errors by more than 5 percentage points, increasing neither rumination nor coercion by 0.3 standard deviations, and increasing median resolution time by no more than 25%; every sampled archived record and link is restored successfully and no safety-pinned item is executable for demotion.","falsification_condition":"The claim is falsified if the Ledger misses either benefit threshold against either comparator, exceeds any predeclared dependency, pinning, affect, coercion, or timing limit, permits a safety-pinned state change, loses a dependency or successor link, or fails to restore any sampled quarantined or archived record.","rationale":"The proposal retains a narrow, falsifiable advantage over adjacent archive-and-restore products and established goal-review practice. Credible evidence supports the broader problem, while the remaining incremental-effect, human-factors, and workflow uncertainties require controlled participant interaction rather than additional web research. A concrete nonclinical partner can supply the necessary participant and oversight access, and the proposed synthetic crossover study is safe, bounded, comparator-based, and capable of rejecting the claimed advantage."}