{"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-reference-method-003","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Governed Reference-Method Bake-Off for Recycled-Polymer Contaminants","problem":"A materials standards board must designate a reference method for measuring total halogen contamination in mixed recycled-polymer pellets. The designation is scarce because laboratories, purchasers, and acceptance specifications will organize around the selected method. Method sponsors can improve their position by choosing favorable validation samples, supplying exceptional support unavailable after selection, omitting difficult matrices, treating nondetectable samples as missing, lobbying evaluators, or making performance depend on proprietary instruments, calibrants, or software. An apparently superior method can therefore win by controlling the comparison or creating downstream dependence rather than by producing transferable measurements across the intended material classes.","actors":["Materials standards board","Competing analytical-method sponsors","Independent testing laboratories","Reference-material preparation team","Polymer recyclers and compounders","Instrument and reagent suppliers","Laboratory technicians and safety officers","Purchasers using contaminant specifications","Independent contest auditor","Appeal and competition reviewer"],"observable_state":"Several method sponsors seek the same reference designation, but their supporting studies use different polymer matrices, concentration ranges, exclusion rules, operator training, instruments, retesting practices, and reporting conventions. The committee sees polished aggregate results but cannot directly distinguish transferable method performance from favorable sample selection, intensive sponsor assistance, or proprietary dependencies.","consequence":"The designated method may classify material inconsistently across laboratories, leave difficult polymer matrices unmeasurable, impose undisclosed reagent, waste, training, or equipment burdens, or lock the standards system to one sponsor. Subsequent material acceptance decisions can then depend on the selected method's artifacts rather than a consistently applied contaminant measurement.","affected_objective":"Designate a time-limited reference method, with a bounded exception method if justified, that supports comparable halogen-contamination decisions across the declared recycled-polymer scope while making reproducibility, untestable samples, laboratory burden, safety spillovers, and proprietary dependence visible in selection.","intervention":"Create a time-limited, independently administered method bake-off whose scarce prize is reference-method designation. Before sponsor identities are disclosed to scorers, freeze the intended sample scope, eligibility requirements, allowed support, reporting schema, scoring dimensions, tie-breaks, audit, conflicts process, appeals, and prohibited conduct. Eligible methods must provide a complete protocol, calibration and uncertainty procedure, safety and waste description, failure-reporting rule, implementation dependencies, and terms under which independent laboratories can obtain required inputs during the designation period. An independent team prepares coded polymer lots spanning declared matrices, interferents, heterogeneity conditions, and values around relevant decision boundaries; part of the panel is withheld for confirmation. Multiple independent laboratories receive randomized samples, common reporting templates, and capped sponsor-funded training and troubleshooting hours. Scoring combines agreement on samples with defensible assigned values, interlaboratory reproducibility, classification consistency near decision boundaries, frequency and handling of invalid results, calibration transfer, operator and instrument burden, hazardous inputs and waste, and dependence on proprietary components. Sponsors may improve protocols only during a declared revision stage; identifying coded samples, selectively suppressing results, undisclosed retesting, contacting scorers, obstructing rival access, or coordinating withdrawals and scope divisions are fouls. Finalists undergo a reproducibility audit on the withheld panel. The board may designate one primary method and one complementary exception method only when the portfolio covers a preregistered material class that the primary method cannot adequately address; otherwise the second designation is withheld. Shared sample definitions, reporting fields, validation records, and method interfaces remain outside winner control. Designation expires on a fixed date, a challenger window permits qualified alternatives to contest it, and post-designation review examines real laboratory transfer, invalid-result patterns, burdens, and sponsor power before renewal.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Rivalry purpose statement","domain_realization":"Use controlled rivalry to compare analytical methods for reference status, not to reward sponsor prestige or equipment sales."},{"archetype_element":"Scarce prize or selection constraint","domain_realization":"A time-limited primary reference-method designation and, only if justified by complementary coverage, one bounded exception designation."},{"archetype_element":"Competitor eligibility boundary","domain_realization":"A method enters only with a complete transferable protocol, uncertainty and failure rules, safety documentation, implementation dependencies, and declared access terms."},{"archetype_element":"Contest arena boundary","domain_realization":"Declared protocol refinement is allowed; sample identification, selective result suppression, hidden retesting, evaluator contact, rival obstruction, and coordinated market division are prohibited."},{"archetype_element":"Performance metric and scoring basis","domain_realization":"Coded interlaboratory testing scores assigned-value agreement, reproducibility, decision consistency, invalid-result handling, transfer burden, safety and waste, and proprietary dependence, followed by withheld-panel audit."},{"archetype_element":"Fair process and due process layer","domain_realization":"Rules precede identities and results, laboratories use randomized samples and common reports, conflicts are disclosed, sponsors receive a documented debrief, and an independent reviewer hears appeals."},{"archetype_element":"Anti-sabotage and anti-collusion guardrail","domain_realization":"Fixed communication controls, submission audits, cross-round pattern screens, and graduated foul consequences protect laboratories, samples, rival access, and independent competition."},{"archetype_element":"Externality and spillover boundary","domain_realization":"Hazardous reagents, consumable waste, technician exposure controls, sample demand, instrument dependence, training load, and invalid-result consequences enter the comparison rather than remaining downstream laboratory costs."},{"archetype_element":"Escalation and arms-race damper","domain_realization":"Each sponsor receives the same revision opportunity and a cap on training, troubleshooting, replacement analyses, and direct laboratory support."},{"archetype_element":"Winner power and lock-in review","domain_realization":"Shared definitions, reporting fields, validation records, and interfaces remain outside sponsor control; designation expires and proprietary foreclosure can override an otherwise high score."},{"archetype_element":"Learning and recalibration loop","domain_realization":"Observed transfer failures, invalid results, burdens, classification disagreements, appeals, and concentration inform renewal, rule revision, scope division, or retirement."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"contest_rulebook","role":"Freezes eligibility, sample scope, legal sponsor support, scoring, revision stages, tie-breaks, fouls, audits, conflicts, and appeals before comparative results are known.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the rulebook, sponsors or judges could alter exclusions, assistance, retesting, or scoring after learning which method benefits."},{"mechanism_slug":"ranked_leaderboard_with_audit","role":"Creates a common multidimensional ranking from coded interlaboratory results and requires finalists to reproduce their standing on a withheld panel before designation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without finalist audit, a method could lead by adapting to the visible sample panel, suppressing failures, or benefiting from favorable validation noise."},{"mechanism_slug":"spending_cap_or_resource_cap","role":"Caps sponsor-funded training, troubleshooting, replacements, and revision rounds so performance cannot be purchased through exceptional support that ordinary laboratories will not receive.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the cap, a well-resourced sponsor could surround a fragile method with personnel and repeated analysis, making support capacity rather than method transferability determine the winner."},{"mechanism_slug":"sabotage_or_foul_penalty_schedule","role":"Precommits graduated consequences for identifying coded samples, suppressing results, hidden retesting, evaluator contact, rival obstruction, or false access representations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without published consequences, manipulation of samples, laboratories, or missing-result rules could remain a viable route to designation."},{"mechanism_slug":"anti_collusion_monitoring","role":"Applies uniform screens across rounds to reciprocal withdrawals, coordinated scope claims, correlated exception requests, and prohibited sponsor-laboratory contacts, referring anomalies for independent inquiry rather than treating them as proof.","counterfactual_removal":"Without cross-round observability, sponsors could divide material classes or soften competition through coordinated withdrawals while each isolated decision appeared permissible."},{"mechanism_slug":"multiple_award_or_portfolio_selection","role":"Permits a primary method plus one exception method only when the combined set covers a preregistered material class that the primary method demonstrably cannot address.","counterfactual_removal":"Without portfolio logic, a single winner could leave a defined matrix unmeasurable; automatic multiple designation, however, would dissipate scarcity and preserve redundant methods."},{"mechanism_slug":"antitrust_or_competition_review","role":"Separately tests whether proprietary instruments, calibrants, software, data control, or licensing terms would let the winner foreclose laboratories or future challengers and may require access conditions or reject designation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without winner-power review, a technically strong method could convert reference status into durable control over the measurement infrastructure itself."},{"mechanism_slug":"challenger_access_window","role":"Expires designation on a fixed cadence and provides a bounded route for qualified methods to contest incumbent status using the current reference panel and rules.","counterfactual_removal":"Without reopening, laboratories' accumulated equipment and training investments could make the initial winner effectively permanent regardless of later comparative performance."},{"mechanism_slug":"post_contest_impact_review","role":"Compares actual laboratory transfer, invalid-result patterns, safety and waste burdens, classification disagreements, and winner control with the contest's stated purpose before renewal.","counterfactual_removal":"Without review, the board would not systematically learn whether bake-off performance transferred into routine use or whether the designation created unanticipated lock-in."}],"causal_chain":["Reference designation creates rivalry because only a bounded set of methods can coordinate laboratory practice and specifications.","Predeclared eligibility and access terms exclude incomplete methods and expose dependencies before sponsors know comparative results.","Coded common samples and randomized laboratory assignment remove each sponsor's ability to choose only favorable matrices or operators.","Common reports and explicit invalid-result rules prevent selective omission from masquerading as analytical performance.","Support and revision caps make the comparison reflect bounded routine implementation rather than unlimited sponsor intervention.","Multidimensional scoring places reproducibility, decision consistency, laboratory burden, safety, waste, and proprietary dependence alongside assigned-value agreement.","Withheld-panel audit tests whether finalist standing survives new samples and independent execution.","Foul enforcement and anomaly referral change the payoff from sample identification, suppression, obstruction, or coordinated withdrawal without treating statistical suspicion as guilt.","Conditional portfolio selection preserves coverage of a genuinely distinct material class without automatically granting every method status.","Protected shared interfaces, competition review, designation expiry, and challenger access prevent one victory from closing the next comparison.","Post-designation evidence determines whether rules, scope, designations, or rivalry itself should continue."],"baseline":"An expert committee selects or renews a reference method from sponsor studies, published protocols, demonstrations, and member experience. Validation evidence is not generated on one coded panel under equal support conditions; instrument and reagent dependencies are considered informally; and designation can persist as laboratories accumulate method-specific equipment and training.","nearest_rivals":["Expert consensus selection: it can integrate tacit scientific judgment but does not create a common bounded comparison or separate method quality from sponsor influence and installed-base familiarity.","Open interlaboratory study without a scarce designation: it can reveal variability but gives participants less reason to expose complete implementation terms and does not govern how one method becomes authoritative.","Single-metric blind round robin: it controls sample identity and compares measurement error but can ignore invalid samples, laboratory transfer, hazardous inputs, waste, proprietary dependence, and post-selection power.","Threshold certification of every qualifying method: it avoids winner-take-all selection but can leave laboratories with incompatible methods and no governed basis for a shared reference decision.","Negotiated harmonization among method sponsors: it can produce one common protocol but risks compromise, market division, or preservation of sponsor-controlled components without adversarial validation.","A permanently prescribed method chosen by the standards board: it supplies coordination and continuity but lacks challenger pressure, expiry, and structured learning from incumbent performance."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Holding scientific sample preparation and existing safety requirements constant, the proposal's distinguishing testable claim is that scarce, time-limited designation combined with equal-support coded trials, explicit failure accounting, multidimensional audit, protected interfaces, and reopening keeps the route to reference status coupled to transferable measurement performance rather than favorable evidence selection, exceptional sponsor support, or infrastructure capture. If ordinary expert review selects the same method for the same reasons and already preserves equivalent transferability, burden visibility, and challenger access, the bounded contest adds no contrastive value.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The materials standards board may authorize a retrospective shadow comparison. Any live validation study, sample preparation, reference designation, access condition, sanction, sponsor investigation, or method replacement requires the board's formal process plus existing laboratory safety, data-governance, intellectual-property, and conflict-of-interest approvals. An independent reviewer controls appeals and competition referrals.","authorized_first_step":"Using records from one completed internal method comparison, preregister a paper-only eligibility screen, common scoring rubric, missing-result rule, support cap, portfolio rule, and lock-in review; then have blinded reviewers shadow-rank the methods using only existing measurements, protocols, training records, safety documents, and dependency disclosures.","excluded_actions":["No preparation, handling, transport, or analysis of new polymer samples","No change to an existing reference method, specification, acceptance decision, or laboratory accreditation","No public ranking, endorsement, criticism, or disclosure of method sponsors or participating laboratories","No inference of collusion, misconduct, or analytical invalidity from a statistical screen alone","No demand for new intellectual-property rights, licenses, source code, instrument access, or proprietary formulations","No contact with sponsors for additional performance evidence during the frozen shadow evaluation","No waiver of laboratory safety, waste, quality, confidentiality, or conflict-of-interest requirements","No use of the shadow result to accept or reject material lots"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if sample values cannot be defended from existing records, method identities cannot be masked from scorers, missing data cannot be distinguished from invalid results, proprietary information would be exposed, or independent reviewers cannot reproduce the scoring. Delete derived method rankings under existing retention rules, preserve only an access-controlled account of assumptions and limitations, and leave every current designation and material decision unchanged."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Existing records may show that the board already used coded representative samples, multiple independent laboratories, equal sponsor support, explicit invalid-result rules, transferable protocols, safety and burden comparisons, held-out confirmation, conflict separation, open interfaces, and periodic challenger review, with committee selection matching those results.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if reference status is not scarce or coordinating, laboratories can use multiple methods interchangeably without consequential disagreement, sponsors cannot strategically shape comparative evidence or future access, and designation creates no material infrastructure or switching advantage.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if assigned-value samples do not represent routine heterogeneous materials, method ranks are unstable across laboratories or reasonable scoring weights, support caps suppress necessary learning rather than exceptional assistance, burden measures cannot be applied consistently, or access conditions make every technically adequate method ineligible without preserving a credible challenger field.","risks":["Prepared sample values may be more certain than values in heterogeneous routine pellets and therefore favor methods optimized for controlled mixtures.","Blinding may fail when instruments, outputs, or preparation steps reveal method identity.","A composite score can conceal normative tradeoffs among analytical agreement, reproducibility, safety, burden, and access.","Support caps may disadvantage methods that are transferable after a legitimate initial training period.","Incumbent laboratories may perform familiar methods better even under equal formal support.","Requiring access terms may exclude proprietary methods that otherwise perform adequately.","An exception designation may become a negotiated consolation prize rather than a justified portfolio component.","Hazard and waste scoring may double-count requirements already enforced as eligibility floors.","Invalid results may be caused by sample preparation or laboratory error rather than the method.","Communication screens may mistake legitimate technical convergence for sponsor coordination.","A challenger window may impose repeated validation costs and destabilize laboratory investment.","Open reporting interfaces may be insufficient if a winner controls essential calibrants or maintenance.","The board may defend its original scoring design during post-designation review instead of testing it.","Users may optimize materials to the reference method once it becomes an acceptance target." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Perform the authorized shadow comparison on one completed internal validation dataset. Before unmasking methods, freeze the intended polymer scope, eligibility fields, scoring dimensions, weight-sensitivity analysis, missing and invalid-result rules, support accounting, finalist-audit proxy, conditional exception rule, and lock-in criteria. Two blinded reviewers should independently normalize existing laboratory results, count excluded and invalid samples, reconstruct sponsor support and retesting from records, score safety and implementation dependencies from existing documents, and compare the governed ranking with expert selection, measurement-error-only ranking, and all-methods-above-threshold certification. Record inter-reviewer agreement, rank reversals under reasonable weights, dependence on particular matrices or laboratories, whether missing-result treatment changes the winner, whether an exception method adds preregistered coverage, and whether any finalist depends on assets unavailable to challengers. The exercise produces no live designation or analytical claim beyond the bounded dataset.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 governed research teams competing for a solid-electrolyte pilot-line slot. Its problem was scientific-result gaming and experimental resource escalation; its intervention compared candidate materials through coded specimens, equal facility credits, replicated property tests, and pilot validation. This proposal governs analytical-method sponsors competing for authoritative reference status. It compares measurement systems rather than materials, governs sponsor support rather than experimental discovery budgets, and acts through coded interlaboratory transfer, explicit invalid-result accounting, protected method interfaces, and expiring standards designation. It can be adopted without allocating pilot capacity or selecting any material formulation. Proposal 2 governed commercial firms bidding for laboratory solvent-recovery volumes. Its problem was incomplete service pricing, rejected waste streams, externalized treatment costs, bid coordination, and contractor lock-in; its intervention used a sealed reverse auction, mass-balance accountability, liability security, and multiple service lots. This proposal purchases no service and allocates no waste stream. Its scarce prize is epistemic and institutional authority, its evidence is comparative analytical performance, and its main lock-in control protects reference samples, reporting conventions, calibrants, and implementation access rather than containers, manifests, or procurement data.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}