{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__accounting_auditing:P2:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__accounting_auditing","proposal_index":2,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim is specific and contrastive: a governed, blinded assurance-hypothesis challenge with independent re-performance should add predictive and incremental validity beyond ordinary QAIP review and a simpler risk-adjusted scorecard without increasing burden or impairing reporting."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"External experiments show that competitive and career incentives can distort internal-auditor reporting and objectivity, while adjacent evidence identifies duplicated findings and remediation burden. The proposal-specific prevalence remains uncertain but is supported by a credible general mechanism."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A chief audit executive overseeing a medium-to-large internal-audit function is a concrete authorizer and adopter, with audit-committee oversight and independent quality-assurance reviewers available to conduct the replay."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The decisive uncertainties require proprietary lead-selection records, preserved workpapers, nonissued hypotheses, held-out transactions, later finding outcomes, burden records, and independent reviewer participation; public research cannot resolve them."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The CAE can authorize a retrospective shadow replay under audit-committee oversight. It changes no reports, mandates, compensation, or personnel decisions; requires no new auditee contact; uses controlled records and independent reviewers; and includes explicit confidentiality, halt, and rollback protections."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The pre-registered six-engagement replay compares the proposed method against existing QAIP outcomes and a simple risk-adjusted scorecard, measures reliability and incremental discrimination, and has explicit no-advance thresholds for reliability, added value, engagement dominance, data feasibility, confidentiality, and reporting risk."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO. The problem gate is uncertain rather than negative, and that uncertainty is exactly what the bounded proprietary-record study addresses; authority, safety, testability, boundedness, and cost-scoping gates are affirmative for the retrospective step."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is an operationally specified empirical replay with a fixed sample, independent reviewers, named comparators, defined measurements, quantitative thresholds, stopping conditions, and a bounded advance-or-stop decision."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS"],"partner_profile":"A medium-to-large internal-audit function whose chief audit executive can authorize controlled retrospective quality analysis, whose audit committee can provide oversight, and whose independent QA staff can access preserved workpapers without participating teams judging their own submissions.","required_access":"Controlled access to six closed engagements, lead-selection and QAIP records, twelve issued or merged findings, six documented nonissued hypotheses, preserved held-out transactions, later merger/withdrawal/reopening outcomes, evidence-request and remediation-burden records, and three independent QA reviewers, subject to privilege, privacy, confidentiality, and workpaper-access controls.","bounded_empirical_test":"Pre-register a retrospective shadow replay across six closed engagements and 18 candidate items. Three independent QA reviewers will apply the proposed blinded composite and limited held-out re-performance, then compare results with existing QAIP or engagement-review outcomes and a simpler risk-adjusted scorecard. Measure inter-rater reliability, leave-one-engagement-out rank stability, blinding success, reviewer hours, later finding validity, incremental risk coverage, reconstructed burden, and strategic markers. Do not publish ranks, contact auditees, alter records, or allocate mandates.","success_condition":"Advance only to consideration of a small prospective simulation with fictional mandates if weighted inter-rater reliability is at least 0.70, rankings remain stable after engagement adjustment, authorized records support meaningful re-performance, confidentiality and blinding controls are adequate, and the proposed method discriminates later validity or incremental coverage better than both comparators without material burden or credible reporting chill.","falsification_condition":"Stop if the records do not show meaningful lead scarcity or strategic interdependence; hypothesized markers are absent or explained by documented risk and scope differences; reliability is below 0.70; engagement identity or workpaper style dominates results; the method adds no discrimination beyond both comparators; necessary records cannot be used safely; or reviewers identify plausible delay of candid escalation, defensive documentation, confidentiality failure, or excessive burden.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner candidate because credible general incentive evidence and a concrete CAE-led adopter structure coexist with unresolved organization-specific prevalence, data feasibility, workflow fit, and incremental-effect questions. Those questions cannot be settled through further web research, but they can be resolved at the next decision stage through a safe, reversible, comparator-based retrospective replay."}