{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__accounting_auditing:P4:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__accounting_auditing","search_queries":["site:gov.uk infrastructure projects authority guide benefits management double counting benefits pdf","site:gov.uk Green Book business case benefits double counting portfolio dependencies","portfolio management double counting benefits transformation projects research","finance transformation survey CFO challenges benefits realization portfolio funding","site:planview.com project portfolio scenario planning financial benefits dependencies capacity official","site:docs.oracle.com portfolio management project benefits scoring capacity scenario optimization","site:servicenow.com strategic portfolio management investment funding benefits realization official","site:justice.gov procurement collusion bid rotation cover bids official","\"Project portfolio management information systems’ positive influence on performance\" authors 181 portfolios DOI","site:sciencedirect.com \"181 project portfolios\" PPMIS formalization","project portfolio management resource competition strategic misrepresentation business cases empirical study","capital budgeting project sponsors compete resources inflate benefits empirical research"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"The Green Book (2026)","publisher":"HM Treasury and Government Finance Function","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government/the-green-book-2026","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2026-02-05","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["UK departments and arm's-length bodies must use structured appraisal and business-case guidance for significant spending proposals.","Appraisal must consider costs, benefits, risks, uncertainty, distributional effects and impacts beyond the originating organization.","Ranking by a benefit-cost metric alone is insufficient; lifecycle evaluation and sensitivity analysis are expected.","A proposal is not good value if it merely transfers costs to another public body, supporting scrutiny of exported lifecycle burdens.","Government finance, project-delivery and approving roles provide an identifiable adopter and authority structure."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Guide for Effective Benefits Management in Major Projects","publisher":"Infrastructure and Projects Authority and Cabinet Office","url":"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/671452/Guide_for_Effective_Benefits_Management_in_Major_Projects.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2017-10-20","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Portfolio offices should prioritize projects by expected benefits and understand attribution, contribution, aggregation and external factors across initiatives.","Benefit profiles should contain measures, baselines, targets, dependencies, risks and owners.","Benefits should be independently assured, monitored after project closure and managed at portfolio level.","Portfolio offices and investment boards are recognizable adopters for portfolio-level benefit governance.","The guidance already covers much of the proposed registry, ownership, dependency mapping and post-implementation review."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Capital rationing, competition, and misrepresentation in budget forecasts","publisher":"Elsevier, Accounting, Organizations and Society","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361368211000559","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2011-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A controlled capital-budgeting experiment found that agents competing for limited funding misrepresented private project information.","Misrepresentation was highest at an intermediate competition level rather than increasing monotonically.","The authors infer that costly enforcement mechanisms such as post-audits may be more valuable under competitive capital rationing.","The study supports the rivalry mechanism but does not establish the prevalence of duplicate benefit identities in real finance-transformation portfolios."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Business Case Control in Project Portfolios—An Empirical Investigation of Performance Consequences and Moderating Effects","publisher":"IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281619949_Business_Case_Control_in_Project_Portfolios-An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Performance_Consequences_and_Moderating_Effects","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2015-11","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A cross-industry study of 183 firms found portfolio-level business-case control positively associated with portfolio success.","The studied practice includes initial review, continuous monitoring and post-project benefit tracking.","The paper identifies creative calculations, unrealistic assumptions and strategic misrepresentation as business-case risks.","It recommends common rules, comparability and rigorous independent review, creating substantial prior-art overlap.","Accountability and portfolio-based incentives strengthened the observed association."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"2026 EY Global DNA of the CFO Survey","publisher":"EY","url":"https://www.ey.com/en_pl/insights/finance/dna-of-the-cfo-survey","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"2026-06-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["EY surveyed 1,610 CFOs, finance directors and heads of finance across 28 countries and 22 industries.","Respondents reported data quality and bias, unclear or indirect benefits, and skills or capacity as leading challenges to securing investment in AI tools.","The survey shows current finance-leader demand for better value definition and investment decisions, but not expressed demand for this specific tender design."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Resource Scenario Optimization Overview","publisher":"Oracle","url":"https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E80480_01/English/user_guides/portfolio_management_user_guide/132927.htm","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026-06-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Commercial portfolio software already simulates project combinations to maximize portfolio value under role-availability constraints.","The tool supports constrained scenario comparison and acceptable-overallocation analysis.","This is close prior art for portfolio optimization and capacity feasibility, although it does not verify whether submitted benefits overlap or govern sponsor conduct."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Red Flags of Collusion","publisher":"U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division","url":"https://www.justice.gov/atr/red-flags-collusion","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2015-06-25","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["DOJ identifies rotating winners, repeated work shares, proposal similarities and suspicious bidder behavior as possible collusion indicators.","The guidance treats combinations of red flags as grounds to report concerns, not as standalone proof.","Its direct context is procurement and grant awards, so applying these screens to internal project sponsors is analogical and requires safeguards against accusation or discipline."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"2026 CFO Budget Priorities","publisher":"Gartner","url":"https://www.gartner.com/en/finance/trends/cfo-budget-survey","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["More than 300 CFOs and senior finance leaders were surveyed about 2026 budget allocation.","Most respondents planned to increase technology and AI spending even while headcount and compensation growth slowed.","The survey supports the existence of active allocation and reallocation decisions under constrained organizational resources, but does not test duplicate benefits or the proposed intervention."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The structural problem is externally visible: experimental accounting research shows that competition for limited capital can induce project-profit misrepresentation, and a 183-firm study documents creative calculations, unrealistic assumptions and strategic misrepresentation in project business cases. Official guidance treats attribution, aggregation, baselines, dependencies, ownership and transferred costs as portfolio-level concerns. However, no located source measures how often finance-transformation proposals claim the same task hours, error population or control benefit; the candidate's exact prevalence and magnitude remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"HM Treasury identifies finance practitioners, portfolio offices and spending approvers as responsible authorities, while IPA guidance explicitly assigns portfolio-level benefit work to portfolio offices and investment boards. Current EY and Gartner surveys show CFO investment activity and difficulty justifying uncertain benefits under data and capacity constraints. This establishes credible adopters and adjacent expressed need, but no organization was found requesting the exact reconciled internal tender, marginal-benefit registry, bid cap or remediation holdback.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"IPA portfolio benefits management","similarity":"Already combines benefit baselines, owners, profiles, dependency maps, attribution and contribution analysis, portfolio aggregation, prioritization, assurance and post-project review.","remaining_difference":"It does not prescribe atomic benefit identities, pre-registered intersection rules, marginal contribution scoring or an internal competitive tender with appeals and bid-conduct controls.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"Portfolio-level business-case control","similarity":"Uses common rules, independent initial review, continuous validation, post-project tracking and accountability to improve a portfolio of projects competing for shared resources.","remaining_difference":"The empirical construct does not specifically reconcile duplicated underlying benefit units or compare each project's marginal value across candidate portfolios.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Oracle Resource Scenario Optimization","similarity":"Selects project combinations that maximize portfolio value while respecting role availability, demand and planning-horizon constraints.","remaining_difference":"It accepts project values as inputs and does not govern how sponsors construct baselines, divide projects or claim overlapping benefits.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"Green Book appraisal and evaluation","similarity":"Requires whole-lifecycle appraisal of benefits, costs, risks, uncertainty, distributional effects, affordability, monitoring and evaluation, and rejects metric-only selection.","remaining_difference":"It is appraisal guidance rather than a rivalry-specific internal tender, benefit-identity registry or marginal-portfolio scoring protocol.","source_ids":["S1"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Against a comparator consisting of common business-case control plus a portfolio optimizer that accepts submitted values, pre-registering traceable benefit identities and intersection rules before an eight-proposal review, then scoring marginal portfolio contribution, will produce materially more reproducible jointly realizable benefit totals and reveal decision-relevant overlaps or capacity conflicts without materially suppressing adjudicated complementarities. This is falsified if reviewers cannot classify intersections reliably, reasonable identity rules yield unstable selections, existing review already resolves the same issues, or the method adds no decision-relevant distinction.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"A retrospective shadow analysis is technically feasible with spreadsheets or existing portfolio systems: official practice already uses benefit profiles, baselines, owners, dependencies and portfolio aggregation, while Oracle documents constrained combination optimization. Independent business-case review and post-project tracking also have empirical precedent. Feasibility remains conditional on access to sufficiently granular authorized records, stable benefit identities, reviewer independence and protection of personnel, vendor and control information. Collusion screens must remain inquiry triggers rather than misconduct findings. No source demonstrates the complete tender or its benefit-identity reconciliation in live use.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If material overlap or exported costs exist, correcting them could change a scarce transformation portfolio and avoid funding benefits that are not jointly realizable. Local prevalence and effect size are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"CFOs are allocating substantial technology investment and report unclear benefits, data and capacity constraints, while official portfolio offices have relevant duties. Pull for the exact tender has not been observed.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S8"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Atomic benefit identities and marginal scoring could improve on optimizers that accept project values as given, but comparative accuracy, burden and decision value require the proposed shadow test.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Most components are established benefits-management, business-case-control, portfolio-optimization and bid-integrity practices. The remaining distinction is a narrow integration centered on benefit intersections and rivalry governance.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Eight proposals can be reconstructed with ordinary analytical tools, two reviewers and existing records; portfolio optimization under budget and role constraints is already productized. Benefit classification, not computation, is the main technical uncertainty.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"CFOs, investment committees, controllers and portfolio offices have recognizable authority for an internal shadow review. A live funding change would require existing investment, control, technology, procurement and employment approvals.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a bounded retrospective dataset and observable measures, but data granularity, permissions, original committee records and the ability to distinguish complementarity from duplication are unknown.","source_ids":["S2","S4"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"A quarantined shadow reconstruction that cannot alter awards, controls or personnel decisions is reversible. Pre-registration, independent validation and treating anomaly screens only as referrals limit hindsight and accusation risks.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Portfolio tools and standardized benefit records can support repeated rounds, but manual identity reconciliation, appeals, confidentiality controls and review burden may grow quickly with portfolio size and qualitative benefits.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Pre-registration, extraction of at most eight historical business cases, two-reviewer benefit-identity coding, bounded baseline spot-checks, three comparator portfolio analyses and a short decision report.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 100-250 total internal analyst, controller, process-owner and assurance hours.","Existing authorized records are accessible without new system integration or operational data collection.","The estimate is a resource-equivalent range, not a vendor quotation."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and legal/control review of the registry taxonomy, scoring and appeal rules; configuration of a controlled data workspace; training reviewers; and dry runs with fictional decisions.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Uses existing portfolio or analytics infrastructure.","No enterprise software procurement or bespoke production optimizer is required.","One business unit or finance-transformation office is in scope."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S6"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"First prospective organization-wide tender cycle, including sponsor support, independent assurance, intersection adjudication, panel operation, appeals, stage-gate monitoring and remediation-reserve administration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 20-50 proposals rather than a global multi-entity rollout.","Costs exclude the transformation awards and remediation reserve principal because those are allocated funds, not governance operating cost.","Existing identity, access, records-retention and portfolio platforms can be extended."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"One or two recurring portfolio rounds, data stewardship, reviewer and panel time, baseline audits, appeals, post-implementation reconciliation, rule updates and software administration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A small central portfolio-assurance team plus part-time controller, audit, technology and process-owner participation.","Manual review remains necessary for qualitative and shared benefits.","No reliable public pricing source was found for this custom governance process."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Primary research supports misrepresentation under competitive capital rationing and business-case information risks, while official guidance recognizes portfolio attribution, aggregation, dependency and transferred-cost problems. Exact local duplicate-claim prevalence remains unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"HM Treasury and IPA guidance identifies finance practitioners, portfolio offices, investment boards and spending approvers with relevant duties; current CFO surveys confirm active transformation-investment decisions.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate can be compared against existing ranking, standardized independent business-case review and an optimizer using unadjusted submitted values, with predeclared agreement, overlap, stability and decision-difference outcomes.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"An eight-proposal retrospective shadow reconstruction using existing records is time-bounded, reversible and has explicit comparators and falsifiers without changing live awards.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The shadow step can remain within CFO/controller authorization, independent validation and existing access controls; it excludes award, accounting, control, employment and disciplinary consequences. Bid-pattern flags must not be treated as proof.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The four bands define resource scopes and assumptions, but no direct public quotation or organization-specific labor, proposal-volume, integration or assurance data was available to calibrate the custom process.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]}},"next_evidence_step":"With CFO or delegated investment-committee authorization, pre-register an eight-proposal retrospective shadow study before inspecting outcomes. Two independent reviewers should map each claimed benefit to underlying task-hour populations, error classes, licenses, controls or other traceable units; record dependencies, lifecycle owners and shared capacity; and adjudicate disagreements without involving project sponsors as validators. Compare: (A) the original decision and documented existing review, (B) a standardized independent project-by-project business-case review, (C) a budget/capacity portfolio optimizer using submitted claims unchanged, and (D) the proposed identity-reconciled marginal portfolio scoring. Report reviewer agreement, the value and share of unreconciled claims, adjudicated false-duplicate and missed-overlap rates, capacity conflicts, lifecycle costs lacking owners, top-portfolio changes, sensitivity across predeclared reasonable identity rules, and analyst hours. Falsify progression if identities require speculative attribution, agreement is materially inadequate, plausible identity rules yield unstable selections, existing review already resolves the material intersections, complements are systematically misclassified, or method D adds no decision-relevant distinction over B or C. Do not alter awards or publish sponsor rankings; the only resulting decision is whether to run a fictional prospective simulation.","blocking_evidence":["No field estimate of duplicate benefit-claim prevalence or financial magnitude in finance-transformation portfolios.","No evidence that a named organization wants the exact tender rather than ordinary portfolio benefits management.","No demonstrated inter-reviewer reliability for the proposed benefit-identity taxonomy.","No comparative test against existing review and an optimizer using unadjusted claims.","No measured effect on selection quality, legitimate complementarities, preparation burden, appeals, trust or gaming displacement.","No organization-specific permissions, data-availability assessment or cost calibration.","No live evidence that preparation caps, holdbacks, challenger gates or internal collusion screens improve outcomes without harmful side effects."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"This evaluation establishes only that closely adjacent practices and products exist and that a narrower contrastive claim remains testable. World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size and realized impact were not measured; the eight-source search cannot exclude undocumented internal practices, other products, patents or research.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure one authorized finance-transformation partner and verify access to eight complete historical proposal and decision records.","Pre-register benefit identities, intersection and complementarity rules, comparators, sensitivity analyses and halt conditions.","Measure independent-reviewer agreement and adjudicated duplicate/complement classification error.","Quantify unreconciled benefits, shared-capacity conflicts, unowned lifecycle costs and differences from existing review.","Demonstrate decision stability under reasonable rule variants and incremental value over a standard review and conventional optimizer.","Produce organization-specific labor, tooling, assurance and recurring-cost estimates before any prospective operational pilot."],"reason":"Bounded web research supports the structural problem, identifies credible authorities and finds substantial adjacent prior art, but the remaining claim depends on proprietary proposal records, human classification reliability and comparative shadow performance. Those questions require partner fieldwork rather than further bounded web search. Under the controller rule, an empirical-research stop is terminal and therefore repairable is false."},"proposal_index":4}