{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__chemistry_materials","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"brg-chem-materials-solid-electrolyte-001","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Bounded Scale-Up Contest for Solid-Electrolyte Films","problem":"At a shared materials-acceleration facility, research teams compete for one scarce pilot-line slot to scale a solid-electrolyte film. If selection rests primarily on each team's best initial conductivity result and persuasive proposal, teams can improve their position through cherry-picked specimens, undisclosed processing differences, excessive use of shared instruments, or formulations whose handling and disposal burdens fall on facility staff. The rivalry can therefore select the submission best adapted to the selection process rather than the film that remains reproducible, stable, processable, and acceptably bounded in hazard at pilot scale.","actors":["Competing electrolyte research teams","Facility scientific director and allocation committee","Independent metrology staff","Pilot-line technicians","Environmental health and safety staff","Waste-handling staff","Downstream cell-integration researchers","Independent appeal reviewer"],"observable_state":"In an allocation round, several eligible teams seek the same pilot-line slot; reported headline measurements come from nonidentical preparation and testing histories; instrument use is uneven; failed specimens and waste burdens are incompletely attributed; and the selection committee cannot reproduce every claimed result before awarding the slot.","consequence":"The awarded slot may go to a brittle result that fails independent replication or pilot processing, while shared capacity is consumed by rank-seeking effort and handling, cleanup, and opportunity costs are shifted to noncompeting staff and downstream users.","affected_objective":"Select a solid-electrolyte film for pilot-scale learning whose measured performance is reproducible across specimens, remains adequate under a predefined condition panel, can be fabricated with the shared process, and does not win by exporting disproportionate safety, waste, or facility-capacity costs.","intervention":"Run a two-stage, time-limited contest for one pilot-line slot and two smaller independent-validation vouchers. Before identities and results are known, publish and freeze eligibility, specimen-preparation boundaries, allowed instrument use, prohibited conduct, scoring dimensions, tie-breaks, audit rules, and appeals. Admit only teams that disclose composition and processing details confidentially to an independent steward and pass existing safety review. Give each entrant equal synthesis and characterization credits. Stage one uses coded specimens and standardized tests for replicated conductivity, between-specimen variation, retained performance after a fixed condition panel, process yield, and attributed handling and waste burden. Stage-two finalists are reproduced by facility staff from disclosed instructions and tested on an undisclosed validation panel. The primary slot goes to the highest validated composite score; validation vouchers go to complementary runners-up rather than redundant formulations. A facility-credit reserve covers attributable cleanup or disposal, with unused credits returned. Statistical screens across rounds may refer suspected coordination or reciprocal slot allocation for independent inquiry but cannot establish a violation. A published penalty schedule covers sample substitution, concealed protocol changes, interference with shared equipment, coordination over outcomes, and retaliation. The award expires after the pilot run, confers no control over future rules or shared test infrastructure, and the next access window reopens to qualified challengers. A precommitted review compares pilot outcomes, spillovers, concentration, and observed gaming with the contest's stated purpose before another round is authorized.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Rivalry purpose statement","domain_realization":"Use rivalry to discover which electrolyte-film approach merits scarce pilot-scale learning, not to confer permanent status on a laboratory."},{"archetype_element":"Scarce prize or selection constraint","domain_realization":"One time-limited pilot-line slot, supplemented by two smaller validation vouchers."},{"archetype_element":"Competitor eligibility boundary","domain_realization":"Teams must provide reproducible preparation instructions, confidential composition disclosure, and safety clearance before entry."},{"archetype_element":"Contest arena boundary","domain_realization":"Formulation and process improvement within equal resource credits is allowed; sample substitution, hidden protocol changes, equipment interference, outcome coordination, and retaliation are prohibited."},{"archetype_element":"Performance metric and scoring basis","domain_realization":"A frozen composite considers replicated conductivity, variation, retained performance, process yield, and handling and waste burden, followed by independent reproduction and an undisclosed validation panel."},{"archetype_element":"Fair process and due process layer","domain_realization":"Coded testing, separated rule-writing and judging roles, documented scoring, finalist audit, debriefs, and a time-boxed independent appeal bind both entrants and organizers."},{"archetype_element":"Anti-sabotage and anti-collusion guardrail","domain_realization":"A published foul schedule deters interference and deception; fixed cross-round screens only refer suspicious coordination for separate investigation."},{"archetype_element":"Externality and spillover boundary","domain_realization":"Safety qualification, attributed waste accounting, technician incident logging, and a cleanup-credit reserve place handling and disposal burdens inside the comparison."},{"archetype_element":"Escalation and arms-race damper","domain_realization":"Equal synthesis, characterization, and instrument credits cap the resources that can be spent pursuing rank."},{"archetype_element":"Winner power and lock-in review","domain_realization":"The award expires after one pilot run, does not transfer rule or infrastructure control, and is followed by a reopened challenger window and impact review."},{"archetype_element":"Learning and recalibration loop","domain_realization":"Pilot outcomes, replication failures, spillovers, appeals, and gaming observations determine whether metrics, eligibility, caps, or the contest itself should change."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"contest_rulebook","role":"Freezes eligibility, legal moves, scoring, tie-breaks, disclosure, audits, and appeals before entrant identities and results can influence the terms.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, the organizer could change requirements after seeing submissions, entrants could dispute arena boundaries, and the outcome would be less contestable."},{"mechanism_slug":"ranked_leaderboard_with_audit","role":"Creates a comparable composite ranking while requiring independent reproduction and held-out validation before the top submission is crowned.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the audit, a public or committee-visible score could reward cherry-picked specimens, irreproducible preparation, or adaptation to the known test panel."},{"mechanism_slug":"spending_cap_or_resource_cap","role":"Assigns equal synthesis, characterization, and instrument credits so the contest tests approaches within a fixed resource envelope.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the cap, well-resourced teams could improve rank by consuming more shared capacity, creating an escalation race and confounding technical merit with resource access."},{"mechanism_slug":"sabotage_or_foul_penalty_schedule","role":"Publishes graduated consequences for sample substitution, concealed deviations, equipment interference, coordination, and retaliation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without detectable and precommitted consequences, prohibited conduct would remain an unenforced request and could become a viable route to winning."},{"mechanism_slug":"anti_collusion_monitoring","role":"Applies the same cross-round screens to all entrants and refers suspicious coordination patterns for independent investigation without treating an anomaly as proof.","counterfactual_removal":"Without monitoring across rounds, reciprocal noncompetition or allocation of turns among repeat entrants could appear to be legitimate independent performance."},{"mechanism_slug":"externality_bond_or_liability_rule","role":"Reserves facility credits for attributable cleanup and disposal, releasing unused credits after the monitoring period.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a secured reserve, teams could improve their apparent score by shifting waste and cleanup costs to technicians, the facility, or later projects."},{"mechanism_slug":"multiple_award_or_portfolio_selection","role":"Preserves one scarce scale-up award while giving two bounded validation vouchers to technically complementary alternatives.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the complementary vouchers, one noisy result could terminate learning from distinct material approaches and concentrate follow-on evidence in the primary winner."},{"mechanism_slug":"challenger_access_window","role":"Expires the primary award and schedules a new qualified challenge after the pilot run.","counterfactual_removal":"Without reopening, one victory could become presumptive entitlement to later pilot capacity and weaken future contestability."},{"mechanism_slug":"post_contest_impact_review","role":"Tests whether the winning film delivered the stated pilot-scale value, traces spillovers, and converts observed failures into rule revisions or contest retirement.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the review, metric failures, externalized burdens, and winner entrenchment would not systematically alter the next allocation round."}],"causal_chain":["A scarce pilot-line slot creates rivalrous pressure among qualified electrolyte-film teams.","Frozen rules, coded specimens, equal resource credits, and prohibited-action definitions constrain the available winning strategies.","Replicated multi-condition scoring makes a single exceptional measurement insufficient for a high rank.","Independent reproduction and held-out validation increase the chance that a leading score represents transferable preparation and performance rather than selection of favorable specimens or test-specific tuning.","Waste attribution and the cleanup-credit reserve make handling and disposal burdens reduce, rather than subsidize, a submission's competitive position.","Auditable penalties and investigation referrals increase the expected cost of deception, interference, and coordinated noncompetition.","A primary award plus complementary validation vouchers preserves selection pressure while retaining evidence from materially different approaches.","Award expiry and a challenger window prevent the winner from converting one result into permanent control of access.","Post-pilot comparison of realized outcomes with the purpose reveals whether the arena kept winning coupled to reproducible, processable, bounded-spillover performance.","If it did not, the authority revises the metric, eligibility, caps, or guardrails, or retires the contest."],"baseline":"The facility allocates the pilot slot through proposal review informed by teams' best reported measurements and investigator reputation, while characterization time is negotiated separately, safety review operates as a pass/fail gate, and pilot outcomes do not automatically trigger redesign of the next selection process.","nearest_rivals":["Independent committee selection using a multi-criteria proposal rubric: it can consider scientific judgment and safety but does not create a standardized, resource-bounded performance arena or audit strategic adaptation.","First-come, first-served allocation among safety-qualified teams: it supplies a transparent queue but does not use rivalry to compare reproducibility or pilot suitability.","Lottery among qualified submissions: it limits favoritism and metric gaming but deliberately discards comparative performance information.","A single-metric interlaboratory leaderboard: it creates direct comparison but lacks resource caps, spillover accounting, due process, complementary awards, and post-award reopening.","A noncompetitive electrolyte consortium sharing the pilot line: it can improve information exchange but does not resolve which approach receives indivisible scale-up capacity when simultaneous access is infeasible."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Holding safety qualification and independent testing constant, the proposal's distinctive testable claim is that coupling a scarce slot to frozen arena rules, capped inputs, audited multi-dimensional scoring, spillover liability, contestability, and reopening changes the viable route to winning from producing the strongest presentation or isolated measurement to producing independently reproducible pilot-relevant performance. If these governance elements neither change selection nor reduce observable strategic distortions relative to simpler qualified review, the contrastive rationale fails.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The facility scientific director may authorize only a shadow evaluation; activation of awards or penalties requires approval from the existing allocation committee, environmental health and safety authority, facility operations lead, and an independent process reviewer. Existing laboratory, waste, employment, confidentiality, and research-integrity authorities remain controlling.","authorized_first_step":"Using records from one completed allocation cycle, preregister the proposed eligibility and scoring logic, recode team identities, and conduct a paper-only shadow ranking plus resource-use and waste-attribution audit; do not alter the historical award or contact entrants for new work.","excluded_actions":["No synthesis, handling, transport, or testing of new materials","No change to an existing allocation, contract, authorship position, or facility access right","No public leaderboard or disclosure of identities, compositions, confidential methods, or allegations","No finding of collusion or misconduct from a statistical screen alone","No collection of a monetary bond or imposition of a penalty","No waiver or replacement of existing environmental health and safety review","No prospective contest launch without separate governance and safety approval"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the shadow exercise if records cannot be de-identified, if scoring requires unavailable confidential information, if waste or resource attribution would expose individuals, or if reviewers cannot apply the frozen rubric consistently. Delete the derived shadow ranking, retain only an access-controlled methods and limitations note, and leave the historical allocation unchanged."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Historical review may show that independent replication, resource access, safety burdens, and pilot outcomes were already incorporated consistently and that proposal-based selection chose the same technically complementary set without evidence of metric gaming, escalation, sabotage, coordination, or lock-in.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified if there is no meaningful rivalrous dependence—for example, pilot access is not actually scarce, teams do not affect one another's opportunity or strategy, or selection errors are explained by irreducible measurement uncertainty rather than manipulable arena features.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if blinded reviewers cannot reliably apply the composite rubric, shadow winners are less reproducible or less pilot-suitable than the historical selection, resource and spillover terms are readily displaced into unmeasured categories, or the added process produces no decision-relevant distinction beyond safety-qualified random or committee selection.","risks":["The composite score may conceal contested value judgments or invite gaming across multiple proxies.","Held-out tests may favor conventional formulations whose behavior is easier to anticipate.","Equal resource caps may disadvantage entrants that must build basic capability while favoring incumbents with existing assets.","Confidential disclosure can expose sensitive formulation knowledge if stewardship fails.","Cleanup reserves may be mis-sized, turning into either an exclusionary entry cost or an ineffective fee.","Multiple awards may dilute validation resources below a useful threshold.","Statistical coordination screens may generate false suspicion from common inputs or methods.","Appeals and audits may delay access enough to consume part of the scarce pilot opportunity.","A recurring contest may discourage collaboration or data sharing outside the bounded arena.","Facility staff could gain excessive discretionary power through specimen preparation or validation choices." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Conduct the authorized shadow evaluation on one completed cycle. Before opening records, freeze the scoring rubric, reviewer roles, missing-data rule, and comparison criteria. Have two blinded reviewers independently score all eligible historical submissions; reconstruct each entrant's facility-resource use, replication evidence, and attributable waste from existing logs; apply the held-out logic only to already available measurements; and compare the shadow selection with the historical award and with qualified lottery, first-come, and simple committee-rubric counterfactuals. Record inter-reviewer agreement, missingness, rank sensitivity to each scoring dimension, whether any guardrail changes eligibility or rank, and whether the primary-plus-complementary portfolio is technically distinguishable. This bounded step produces no prospective award and authorizes no inference of misconduct.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not applicable within this single-proposal sealed task; no comparison was performed.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}