{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__chemistry_materials:P4:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__chemistry_materials","search_queries":["polymer depolymerization consortium intellectual property collaboration priority sharing research consortium BOTTLE","site:energy.gov BOTTLE consortium plastics deconstruction recycling collaboration","research consortium intellectual property foreground results joint ownership access rights official guidance","confidential disclosure registry research priority timestamp invention electronic lab notebook consortium","primary research academic competition secrecy withholding results patent race scientists survey publication delay industry collaboration","research competition priority race withholding data duplication experiments empirical study scientists","materials chemistry research competition safety rushing experiments publication pressure laboratory safety study","patent race scientific research disclosure delay empirical study university industry collaboration","site:uspto.gov inventor first to file laboratory notebook priority evidence patent official","site:wipo.int laboratory notebook timestamp invention disclosure confidentiality research collaboration","electronic lab notebook timestamp priority research collaboration official guidance","open science registered reports priority protection research ideas timestamp","site:acs.org laboratory safety publication pressure rushing experiments safety culture chemistry research official","site:osha.gov laboratory chemical hygiene plan prior approval hazardous operations research laboratories","National Academies safe science laboratory competition research pressure safety culture","polymer depolymerization hazardous reaction scale-up safety review chemical recycling official","research consortium agreement confidential invention disclosure priority committee allocation modular foreground intellectual property near simultaneous contributions","joint development agreement invention disclosure registry allocation committee patent priority consortium","patent pool research consortium ex ante intellectual property sharing modular contributions collaboration","open innovation consortium rules foreground IP access rights milestone contributions confidential registry","site:bls.gov/oes/current chemists lawyers project management specialists annual mean wage 2025","site:bls.gov/oes/2024/may chemists annual mean wage lawyers project management specialists","BLS occupational employment wages chemists 2024 annual mean wage lawyers","BLS Employer costs employee compensation professional occupations benefits 2025"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Join the BOTTLE Consortium","publisher":"BOTTLE Consortium","url":"https://www.bottle.org/join-bottle-consortium","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A real DOE-supported plastics deconstruction and upcycling consortium offers multi-institution collaborative projects.","BOTTLE uses pre-negotiated CRADAs to structure information and material sharing.","BOTTLE projects anticipate foreground inventions; ownership follows inventorship and supporting partners can negotiate exclusive field-of-use licenses.","BOTTLE is a plausible adopter setting, but its stated licensing model does not express demand for the proposed nonexclusive compact."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science: Evidence From a National Survey of Faculty","publisher":"JAMA Network","url":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/415383","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"1997-04-16","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["In a national life-science faculty survey, 19.8% reported at least one publication delay exceeding six months for reasons including patenting, protecting a scientific lead, or resolving IP disputes.","In the same survey, 8.9% reported refusing to share results, and academic-industry relationships were associated with publication delay.","The study explicitly concluded that withholding was not widespread, limiting extrapolation to polymer research."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Safe Science: Promoting a Culture of Safety in Academic Chemical Research","publisher":"National Academies Press","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/18706/chapter/2","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2014","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Serious and sometimes fatal accidents have occurred in university chemical-research laboratories.","Chemical-research safety must remain important even when it conflicts with productivity goals.","Institutional incentives, reporting relationships, leadership, and information exchange affect laboratory safety culture."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"University and business collaboration agreements: model agreement guidance","publisher":"UK Intellectual Property Office / GOV.UK","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/university-and-business-collaboration-agreements-model-agreement-guidance/university-and-business-collaboration-agreements-model-agreement-guidance","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2018-10-30","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Model collaboration and consortium agreements already allocate foreground results, protect background IP, and specify exploitation rights.","The guidance recommends separating ownership of distinguishable result components rather than defaulting to broad joint ownership.","Nonexclusive, field-limited licensing and project-use access are established contractual options."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Moonshot Research and Development Program: Intellectual Property Agreement (Annex 7)","publisher":"Bio-oriented Technology Research Advancement Institution, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization","url":"https://www.naro.go.jp/laboratory/brain/english/Annex_7.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2023","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An operating public R&D program provides a close consortium-IP template with confidentiality duties, immediate invention reporting, an IP steering committee, foreground-IP allocation, and revision by member consent.","The template lets consortium members use shared foreground IP without charge and restricts assertion of member IP against project R&D.","Joint shares remain subject to consultation, rather than a preregistered modular threshold or near-simultaneous credit rule."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Intramural Electronic Lab Notebook Policy","publisher":"National Institutes of Health, Office of Intramural Research","url":"https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/intramural-program-oversight/electronic-lab-notebooks/intramural-electronic-lab-notebook-policy","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2024","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Existing electronic laboratory notebooks can provide access controls, validated signatures, immutable timestamps, page locking, audit trails, versioning, and deletion controls.","NIH identifies these capabilities as useful for research expected to generate IP and for collaborations with specialized data-management requirements.","A confidential timestamp registry is technically feasible, although security approval, governance, retention, and institutional ownership remain necessary."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"First Inventor to File Resources","publisher":"United States Patent and Trademark Office","url":"https://www.uspto.gov/patents/first-inventor-file-fitf-resources","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2016-02-05; updated 2024-02-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The United States uses a first-inventor-to-file system under the America Invents Act.","An internal consortium timestamp cannot substitute for a patent filing date or independently determine statutory patent priority.","The compact must separate internal credit and access decisions from inventorship, patent ownership, filing, validity, and priority determinations."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Employer Costs for Employee Compensation — March 2026","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf?src_trk=em67fb3eaaafc335.343992441037078681","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["March 2026 private-industry total employer compensation averaged $72.24 per hour for management, business, and financial occupations and $67.58 for professional and related occupations.","University and professional-school industry compensation averaged $71.24 per hour.","These labor benchmarks support order-of-magnitude staffing estimates but do not price specialized patent counsel, secure registry procurement, or consortium opportunity costs."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The underlying setting is real: BOTTLE conducts collaborative plastics-deconstruction R&D under agreements that anticipate IP and information sharing. Primary survey evidence shows patenting, scientific-lead protection, and IP disputes can delay disclosure, while the National Academies documents consequential chemical-laboratory safety failures and incentive pressures. However, the disclosure study is old and from life sciences, and no direct source establishes the proposed prevalence of hazardous duplication, strategic attribution, equipment monopolization, collusion, or blocking claims inside polymer-depolymerization consortia. The broad problem exists and matters, but its polymer-consortium magnitude is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"BOTTLE is an identifiable, credible consortium setting and explicitly values structured collaboration, information sharing, IP development, and standardized agreements. That establishes an adopter class, not expressed pull for this compact. Its current inventorship-based ownership and possible exclusive field-of-use licensing may conflict with the proposal's finite credit pool and nonexclusive integration floor. No consortium, steering committee, sponsor, institutional IP office, or safety authority was found requesting confidential internal priority, near-simultaneous credit splitting, or research-resource caps.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"BOTTLE pre-negotiated CRADAs","similarity":"Same plastics R&D consortium context; structured sharing of information and materials; foreground inventions, inventorship-based ownership, and field-of-use licensing are already governed prospectively.","remaining_difference":"No public evidence of modular threshold credit, near-simultaneous split credit, phase resource caps, challenger windows, or a shadow priority registry.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"Lambert university-business collaboration and consortium agreements","similarity":"Established model agreements prospectively separate background and foreground IP, allocate distinguishable result components, and support nonexclusive or field-limited access.","remaining_difference":"They allocate legal rights contractually but do not create a finite contribution-credit tournament tied to verified polymer-process modules and safety/resource caps.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"NARO/BRAIN Moonshot consortium IP agreement","similarity":"Very close governance architecture: confidentiality, prompt invention disclosure to an IP steering committee, allocation of foreground shares, internal-use rights, nonassertion during project R&D, continuing obligations, and consensual revision.","remaining_difference":"Shares are negotiated after joint invention; there is no preregistered module map, confidential provisional-credit timestamp, fixed near-simultaneous interval, threshold-based credit pool, or linkage to hazardous-run and shared-resource caps.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"NIH-compliant electronic laboratory notebooks","similarity":"Provide the proposed registry's core technical controls: immutable timestamps, identity, signatures, page locking, audit trails, access controls, and retention governance.","remaining_difference":"An ELN records evidence but does not adjudicate modular scientific contribution, allocate credit, create patent priority, detect collusion, or guarantee confidentiality across independent institutions.","source_ids":["S6","S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Holding statutory patent rules, inventorship, scientific verification, and independent safety authority constant, adding preregistered modular thresholds, confidential internal timestamps, a fixed near-simultaneous split-credit rule, phase resource caps, and nonexclusive integration access to ordinary consortium agreements will reduce disclosure lag and strategically redundant or hazardous escalation while preserving contribution effort and increasing independently reusable module integration. The claim fails if ordinary joint-development terms perform equivalently, if modules cannot be classified prospectively and reliably, or if the compact reduces participation or necessary confirmation work.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The registry is technically implementable with existing ELN controls, and official agreement templates show that confidentiality, foreground allocation, access, nonassertion, steering committees, and revisions can be contracted. A retrospective shadow replay avoids laboratory risk and alteration of real rights. The principal constraint is legal and institutional: an internal timestamp is not patent priority, inventorship and ownership cannot be replaced by scoring, and all institutions must consent to future changes in IP, publication, resource access, sanctions, and licensing. Module specification, reviewer reliability, behavioral response, antitrust treatment of coordinated IP terms, export controls, data security, and compatibility with existing CRADAs remain untested.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the documented general disclosure and safety problems occur materially in polymer consortia, reducing withholding, duplicative hazardous work, and blocking IP could improve safety and integrability. Polymer-specific incidence and realized impact are not measured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"A credible adopter class exists and already uses structured collaboration agreements, but no stakeholder expressed demand for the distinctive compact and existing exclusive-license options may create resistance.","source_ids":["S1"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The timestamp-plus-split-credit-plus-resource-cap bundle could improve on ordinary agreements, but most legal, access, disclosure, and registry components are established and no comparative outcome evidence exists.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The remaining combination is contrastive and testable, but it sits close to established consortium agreements, invention-disclosure committees, modular ownership, internal access rights, and timestamped ELNs.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Secure timestamped records, access control, signatures, audit trails, and role-based review are available technologies. Cross-institutional configuration and module adjudication, rather than core software, are the difficult parts.","source_ids":["S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Consortium agreements can govern many proposed terms, but adoption requires multi-party institutional consent and cannot override statutory first-to-file priority, inventorship, ownership, safety, or employment rules.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"A bounded retrospective replay is specified, but it needs proprietary historical records and cannot by itself identify behavioral or safety effects that would occur under live incentives.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Even without a productivity gain, protected safety authority, documented safety information, nonassertion/access floors, and auditable records could reduce downside risk, provided resource caps do not displace hazardous work outside the consortium.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The governance and registry pattern can be reused across consortium phases, but each new scientific architecture needs bespoke modules, evidence thresholds, IP review, security configuration, and participant consent.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One de-identified retrospective shadow replay of one completed project: protocol design, secure record preparation, two independent technical reviewers, limited IP/safety review, comparator coding, adjudication, and a methods-and-limitations report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 800-2,200 professional hours at roughly $58-$72 per compensated hour before specialized overhead.","No new experiments, external discovery, ownership opinion, misconduct inquiry, or production registry.","The host consortium can lawfully provide de-identified records without major restoration or privilege review."],"source_ids":["S6","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Draft and negotiate the compact; map modules; configure a secure registry; establish roles, retention, appeals, access rules, security review, training, and interfaces to existing ELNs and facility systems.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Three to eight FTE-equivalent years of technical, program, security, IP, contracting, and safety work spread across participating institutions.","Existing secure SaaS or institutional infrastructure is configured rather than built from scratch.","Patent prosecution, scientific experiments, prize payments, and shared-facility capital are excluded."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Operate the first 12-18 month live phase: registry stewardship, independent technical and attribution review, appeals, security monitoring, resource-ledger integration, training, legal administration, anomaly referral, and post-phase evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately eight to twenty professional FTE-equivalents plus specialized counsel, software, audit, and institutional overhead.","Research grants, laboratory runs, equipment, precursors, waste handling, and the value of foreground credit are excluded.","A multi-institution launch requires parallel local implementation and governance."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Registry and security operations, technical verification, appeals, resource accounting, access review, periodic agreement maintenance, pattern-screen referral, training, and post-phase review for an active multi-institution consortium.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Six to eighteen ongoing FTE-equivalents, depending on submission volume and dispute rate.","External patent prosecution, experiments, shared facilities, prizes, licensing consideration, and sanctions are outside the estimate.","Automation reduces record administration but not scientific verification, legal review, or due process."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"External evidence supports collaborative plastics R&D with valuable IP, measurable withholding associated with patenting and scientific priority, and consequential chemical-research safety pressures. The detailed polymer-specific prevalence remains a gap rather than a refutation.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"BOTTLE is a credible adopter class with authority exercised through participating institutions and CRADAs, but no named consortium or authorized committee has expressed interest in this compact or shown authority to replace existing credit, IP, licensing, and resource-allocation terms.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal isolates a falsifiable increment beyond ordinary consortium agreements: modular preregistration, confidential internal timestamps, near-simultaneous split credit, phase caps, and protected integration access, measured against disclosure, duplication, safety, participation, and reuse outcomes.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A one-project, records-only, preregistered shadow replay with two independent reviewers, explicit comparators, de-identification, halt conditions, and no change to real rights is bounded and reversible.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step performs no laboratory work and leaves safety, inventorship, patent filing, ownership, authorship, licensing, and misconduct authority unchanged. Any live phase must preserve that separation because an internal timestamp has no statutory patent-priority effect.","source_ids":["S3","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"All four ranges state inclusions, exclusions, staffing assumptions, and confidence. March 2026 employer-compensation data provide an external labor anchor, although specialized legal, security, and institutional overhead make deployment estimates low-confidence.","source_ids":["S6","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Secure one consortium partner and run the authorized retrospective simulation on one completed polymer-depolymerization or closely comparable multi-module project. Before identities or outcomes are opened, freeze the module map, minimum deposit contents, thresholds, timestamp rule, near-simultaneous interval, duplicate-versus-improvement rule, credit shares, resource caps, protected-access floor, adjudication protocol, and analysis plan. Two independently blinded reviewers should reconstruct deposits from contemporaneous notebooks, disclosures, equipment and safety logs, meeting records, patent drafts, and integration reports. Compare the compact with (A) actual attribution and access, (B) ordinary inventorship-based joint-development terms, (C) first internal disclosure, (D) equal joint ownership, and (E) one overall prize. Measure reviewer agreement, percentage of contributions classifiable without hindsight, reconstructed disclosure lag, duplicated facility and hazardous-run use, documented safety deviations, credit concentration, module reuse, access dependencies, and necessary work excluded by caps. Stop and reject readiness for a live pilot if inter-reviewer agreement is below 0.70, more than 20% of consequential contributions are unclassifiable, timestamps cannot be independently reconstructed, the module map requires outcome-informed revision, caps exclude necessary confirmation work without reducing duplication, or protected access conflicts with governing agreements. Treat the causal claim as unproven even after a successful replay; testing whether behavior actually changes requires a separately authorized, prospective controlled pilot using matched phases or projects and ordinary consortium terms as the comparator.","blocking_evidence":["No direct prevalence estimate for strategic withholding, hazardous duplication, attribution gaming, resource monopolization, or blocking IP in polymer-depolymerization consortia.","No adopter has expressed demand for the distinctive compact or committed authority, records, staff, or funding.","No evidence shows that scientific contributions can be prospectively decomposed into stable modules and scored reliably without hindsight.","No legal review establishes compatibility with each participant's CRADA, employment, inventorship, patent-filing, publication, confidentiality, export-control, antitrust, and licensing obligations.","No proprietary completed-project dataset has been secured for the shadow replay.","A retrospective replay cannot identify behavioral effects on effort, strategic clustering, off-system work, participation, disclosure, safety, or integration; those require a prospective live test.","Specialized registry, counsel, review-volume, and institutional-overhead costs remain unquoted."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search found substantial collision with consortium agreements, invention-disclosure committees, modular foreground-IP allocation, internal nonassertion/access terms, and secure timestamped ELNs. It did not locate the exact combined rule set of preregistered polymer-process modules, confidential provisional internal priority, fixed near-simultaneous split credit, phase research-resource caps, and nonexclusive integration access. That absence in eight bounded sources is not a world-novelty finding. World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, and legal enforceability remain unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain written participation from a named consortium and the institutional IP, contracting, security, research-integrity, facility, and environmental-health-and-safety authorities needed for a records-only replay.","Secure and de-identify one completed multi-module project dataset with independently reconstructable timestamps, resource use, safety records, attribution history, patent drafts, and integration outcomes.","Demonstrate preregistered module classification with inter-reviewer agreement of at least 0.70 and no more than 20% consequential unclassifiable contributions.","Complete jurisdiction-specific legal review confirming that internal credit is separate from inventorship and patent priority and that access, confidentiality, publication, licensing, and competition terms are permissible.","After a successful replay, obtain separate authorization for a prospective matched-project or phased pilot capable of measuring disclosure, duplication, safety, effort, participation, and reuse against ordinary consortium governance.","Replace staffing assumptions with vendor, counsel, security, and reviewer quotations for all four cost scopes."],"reason":"Web evidence establishes a real collaboration setting, relevant disclosure and safety problems, implementable registry technology, and extensive adjacent practice. It cannot determine polymer-specific prevalence, adopter willingness, module reliability, legal compatibility across institutions, or causal behavioral effects. The next decisive evidence requires proprietary records, institutional partnership, and eventually live prospective testing; therefore the empirical-research stop is final for this evaluation and, as required for every STOP recommendation, repairable is false."},"proposal_index":4}