{"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 proposal retains a specific, falsifiable incremental claim: an independently verified hidden-sample readiness ranking should predict genuine first-pass readiness better than both current queue ordering and noncompetitive risk-based administrative triage, without worsening issue disclosure."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"External evidence credibly establishes consequential close bottlenecks, rework, adjustments, inconsistent subsidiary data, capacity constraints, and control risks. It does not establish the narrower rivalry mechanism, but that remaining uncertainty is explicitly testable rather than vague problem fishing."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A multi-entity organization’s corporate controller is a concrete authorizer and adopter, with internal controls or internal audit, legal/HR, data owners, and participating reporting units providing the necessary governance and execution roles."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The central uncertainties require proprietary queue logs, reconciliation evidence, exception transfers, reviewer rework, correcting entries, escalation records, local control boundaries, and participant behavior; ordinary public research cannot resolve them."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The retrospective shadow replay is bounded to an already completed close, requires appropriate local approvals and consenting units, preserves mandatory accounting and audit processes, excludes live allocation and personnel consequences, and includes explicit halt and rollback conditions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The preregistered replay compares actual ordering, blinded administrative triage, and the arena score on defined readiness and safety outcomes, with explicit thresholds for discrimination, rank stability, confounding, data quality, and reporting behavior. It decisively governs whether to stop or advance only to a prospective no-consequence simulation."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO. The problem-specific premise and cost scope are uncertain, while the incremental claim, adopter class, bounded evidence step, and shadow-pilot safety and authority gates are supported."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step is an executable partner-based protocol specifying approvals, entities, records, samples, three comparators, outcomes, stability analyses, safety measures, and advance or stop rules."}},"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 consequential financial-close review queue, exportable close and reconciliation records, a corporate controller able to sponsor a no-consequence replay, an independent controls or internal-audit verifier, and legal/HR, data-owner, and external-audit boundary review.","required_access":"Authorized access to one completed close’s queue order and escalation logs, package timestamps, reconciliation evidence, sign-offs, exception aging and reopening, intercompany mismatch transfers, reviewer rework, subsequent correcting entries, entity risk and complexity covariates, plus verifier participation and bounded debrief access from consenting units.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister a retrospective replay across four to eight 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. Measure first-pass evidentiary completeness, rework hours, reopened exceptions, transferred mismatches, unsupported corrections, disclosure timing, protected escalations, missing evidence, rank stability, and size or complexity confounding. Make no live queue, reporting, compensation, or personnel decisions.","success_condition":"Advance only to a prospective no-consequence simulation if the arena score improves out-of-sample discrimination over administrative triage, has Kendall rank stability of at least 0.60 under bootstrap samples and reasonable weight changes, is not explained by entity size or complexity after preregistered adjustment, uses consistently available lawful data, and shows no indication of delayed or suppressed issue reporting.","falsification_condition":"Stop if queue scarcity or strategic interdependence is not evidenced; the arena score fails to outperform noncompetitive risk-based triage; rankings are unstable; results are driven by size, complexity, system latency, or reviewer capacity; required records cannot be joined consistently; or logs and debriefs indicate delayed disclosure, concealment, or interference with close or audit work.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case because established close-management and risk-based assurance practices are substantial adjacent art, yet the proposal preserves a differentiated comparator-based claim about governing a scarce review-slot rivalry. Its pivotal causal premise, incremental predictive value, data feasibility, workflow fit, behavioral safety, and local cost cannot be resolved publicly and require authorized organizational access. The proposed replay is reversible and decisive for a bounded next-stage decision, while passing it would not justify live slot allocation."}