{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__accounting_auditing:P1:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__accounting_auditing","proposal_index":1,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim is specific and falsifiable: an independently verified hidden-sample arena score should predict genuine first-pass readiness better than both current queue ordering and noncompetitive risk-based triage, while remaining stable and not degrading issue disclosure."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"External evidence establishes consequential close bottlenecks, rework, adjustments, inconsistent subsidiary data, constrained capacity, and control risks. It does not establish the narrower rivalry mechanism, but that is a legitimate field uncertainty rather than vague problem fishing."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A multi-entity organization’s corporate controller or controllership function is a concrete adopter and authorizer class, with internal controls or internal audit, legal/HR, data owners, and participating reporting units as required collaborators."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The central uncertainties depend on proprietary queue records, reconciliation evidence, exception transfers, escalation logs, reviewer rework, correcting entries, organizational authority boundaries, and local data-join quality; ordinary public research cannot resolve them."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"With specified controller, controls, legal, and data-owner approvals, the retrospective shadow replay uses a completed close and consenting units, changes no live queue or accounting decision, excludes personnel consequences, protects required escalation, and has explicit halt and rollback conditions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The one-close replay is bounded to four to eight entities and 40–80 reconciliations, preregisters scoring, compares actual ordering, administrative triage, and the arena score, measures readiness and safety outcomes, tests rank stability, and supplies explicit no-advance thresholds. It decisively determines whether a prospective no-consequence simulation is warranted, not whether deployment is warranted."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO. The problem-specific mechanism and cost scope are uncertain, while the adopter, incremental claim, bounded evidence step, and shadow-pilot safety and authority gates pass."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is an executable partner-specific replay with defined records, units, samples, comparators, outcomes, stability analyses, approvals, and falsification thresholds."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A medium-to-large multi-entity organization with a recurring financial close, scarce central consolidation or technical-accounting review capacity, exportable queue and close records, and a corporate controller able to sponsor a no-consequence replay alongside an independent controls or internal-audit verifier.","required_access":"Authorized access to one completed close’s queue order, package timestamps, reconciliation evidence, sign-offs, exception aging and reopening, intercompany transfers and mismatches, reviewer rework, escalation logs, subsequent correcting entries, entity complexity covariates, and relevant staff for a bounded debrief; written approval from controller, controls, legal/HR, and data owners is required.","bounded_empirical_test":"Pre-register a retrospective shadow replay across four to eight consenting entities and 40–80 risk-stratified reconciliations. Blind verification where feasible and compare A) recorded self-certified or manager-escalated order, B) blinded noncompetitive risk-based administrative triage, and C) the proposed arena score. Evaluate first-pass completeness, rework hours, reopened exceptions, transferred intercompany mismatches, unsupported corrections, disclosure timing, protected escalations, missing evidence, confounding by size or complexity, and rank stability under bootstrap samples and reasonable weight changes.","success_condition":"The arena score provides stable, out-of-sample discrimination of independently verified readiness beyond administrative triage; Kendall rank stability is at least 0.60; findings are not driven by entity size, complexity, system latency, or reviewer capacity after preregistered adjustment; required data are consistently available; and no disclosure-delay or suppression signal appears. Success authorizes only a prospective no-consequence simulation.","falsification_condition":"Do not advance if queue scarcity or strategic interdependence is unsupported, the arena score fails to improve discrimination over risk-based triage, rankings are unstable, results collapse after adjustment for operational confounders, required data cannot be joined consistently, or logs and debriefs indicate delayed or suppressed issue reporting.","rationale":"This is a proper empirical-partner candidate because credible adjacent evidence and identifiable adopters coexist with a sharply defined proprietary uncertainty: whether scarce review priority creates strategic behavior and whether the differentiated governance score adds value over ordinary administrative triage. Partner access is indispensable, and the proposed retrospective replay is safe, comparator-based, bounded, and governed by explicit advancement and falsification rules."}