{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__film_media_production:P1:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__film_media_production","search_queries":["documentary editing multiple editors competing cuts edit test paid editor hiring sample cut","documentary film ethical framework participant consent editorial process official","Motion Picture Editors Guild edit test unpaid work hiring editor","documentary final cut authority producer director contract DGA documentary","site:sundance.org documentary edit and story lab official editor teams advisors","site:documentary.org ethics guidelines documentary participants consent editorial official","site:docaccountability.org framework values practices documentary care consent official PDF","site:editorsguild.com wage rates picture editor 2025 2026","Documentary Accountability Working Group framework values practices PDF consent care accountability","documentary filmmakers survey ethical challenges subjects consent Center for Media Social Impact study","film video editor wage rate 2026 IATSE Local 700 rate card picture editor","paid trial work legal Department Labor employer test applicants productive work","Adobe Frame.io audit logs asset access history official documentation read only permissions","Avid Media Composer shared project read only media permissions audit log official","creative contest multiple video edits competition platform official same footage winner editor","film editing blind judging anonymized cuts study interrater reliability","site:editorsguild.com \"2024-2027\" wage rates editor PDF","site:editorsguild.com \"Wage Schedules\" Local 700 2025 2026","site:iatse.net Local 700 2024 2027 wage schedule PDF picture editor","site:bls.gov film and video editors hourly wage 2025"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"EditorDuel — Competition-Based Video Editing Marketplace","publisher":"EditorDuel","url":"https://www.editorduel.com/","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"2026 (copyright date; page publication date not stated)","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A commercial service already lets clients upload footage, solicit competing edits, choose the preferred edit, or hire a favored editor.","The basic competing-edit mechanism therefore is not novel.","The advertised $50–$200 projects concern ordinary online video and do not evidence professional documentary labor, rights, participant-safety, appeal, audit, or final-cut governance."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Documentary Film Program","publisher":"Sundance Institute","url":"https://www.sundance.org/programs/documentary-film","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026 (current program information; page publication date not stated)","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Sundance funds nonfiction projects and operates post-production edit support.","Its 2026 Documentary Edit Intensive identifies a need for dedicated editing space, experimentation, story discussion, and access to creative resources.","Its expressed practice centers collaboration between an attached director-editor team and advisors, not rivalry among editors for one assignment."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work","publisher":"Center for Media & Social Impact, American University","url":"https://cmsimpact.org/resource/honest-truths-documentary-filmmakers-on-ethical-challenges-in-their-work/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2009-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Forty-five long-form interviews documented recurring ethical conflicts among obligations to participants, viewers, artistic vision, cost, and production exigencies.","Filmmakers reported inadequate clarity, standards, and support for ethical deliberation under work pressure.","The study supports the importance of documentary governance but does not measure competing-assembly abuses."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"The Filmmaker-Participant Relationship Unpacked: Ethical Responsibility and Impact in Documentary Filmmaking","publisher":"Independent Television Service (ITVS)","url":"https://itvs-website.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/study-filmmaker-participant-relationship/Final%20Report_%20The%20Filmmaker-Participant%20Relationship%20Unpacked.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2026 (exact report date not stated)","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The study surveyed 678 U.S. documentary filmmakers and 195 participants and included focus groups.","About one in ten participants regretted involvement, one fifth did not fully understand risks, and one in twelve reported negative personal or professional impact.","Participants reported misrepresentation, inadequate transparency, safety and mental-health concerns, and insufficient post-production input.","Forty-six percent of filmmakers reported resource constraints that impeded deeper participant engagement."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Core Values for Ethical and Accountable Nonfiction Filmmaking","publisher":"Documentary Accountability Working Group","url":"https://www.docaccountability.org/values","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Field guidance calls for transparency, participant dignity and agency, attention to crew and participant wellbeing, and responsible stewardship of stories.","Aesthetic selection cannot safely treat consent and participant harm as merely optional scoring preferences."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Basic Agreement of 2020 — Article 7: Directors' Minimum Conditions, Preparation, Production and Post-Production","publisher":"Directors Guild of America","url":"https://www.dga.org/Contracts/Directors-Economic-Rights/Basic-Agreement-Article-7","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2020","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Covered directors have consultation and post-production creative rights.","The agreement prohibits interference and cutting behind during the director's-cut period.","The director presents the director's cut to the producer and the person designated in the deal memo as holding final cutting authority.","A competing-assembly pilot therefore requires production-specific confirmation that it does not infringe contractual directing or final-cut rights."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"User Roles and Permissions — Frame.io V4 Knowledge Center","publisher":"Frame.io","url":"https://help.frame.io/en/articles/9875389-user-roles-and-permissions","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026-06-16","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Current production software supports restricted projects and granular full-access, edit, comment-only, and view-only permissions.","These controls make common-source access and separated reviewer workspaces technically feasible.","Inherited administrator access means the proposed claim of immutable or strictly equal access still requires configuration testing and independent log retention."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Occupational Employment and Wages — May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.htm","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-05-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The May 2025 national mean wage for film and video editors was $41.41 per hour, with a $36.26 median.","The mean wage for producers and directors was $54.47 per hour.","These are employee wage estimates, not fully loaded freelance, union, legal, software, safeguarding, or overhead rates, so they support only broad cost bands."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"S1 directly verifies that multiple editors competing on one supplied project for client selection exists. S3 and S4 show consequential documentary-specific ethical, resource, transparency, representation, and participant-harm problems. However, no source measured the proposal's particular alleged tactics—footage reservation, assistant or facility capture, off-book hours, test-audience manipulation, disparagement, or collusion—in professional documentary final-cut selection. The problem is visible and material, but its exact prevalence and causal attribution to competing assemblies remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"Sundance is an identifiable funder and operator expressing demand for documentary post-production experimentation and resource support, while DGA rules identify the employer, producer, and deal-memo final-cut designee as relevant authorizers. DAWG supplies an identifiable safeguarding constituency. None expresses demand for rival editors competing for final-cut stewardship; Sundance instead emphasizes a stable director-editor collaboration. Adopter pull for this exact format was not found.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"EditorDuel competing-edit marketplace","similarity":"It already implements the central mechanism: a client supplies footage, multiple editors compete, and the client chooses an edit or editor.","remaining_difference":"It does not publicly document the proposal's paid-hour parity, documentary rights and consent controls, preregistered multi-criterion judging, blinded first stage, independent appeal, bounded winner authority, or post-contest review.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"Sundance Documentary Edit and Story Lab/Intensive","similarity":"It supports documentary projects at assembly or rough-cut stages through structured experimentation, screenings, feedback, advisors, funding, and dedicated editing resources.","remaining_difference":"It is collaborative and director-editor centered, has no rival cuts for one scarce assignment, and supplies no evidence that tournament-style selection improves decisions.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"DGA-governed director/editor post-production process","similarity":"It formalizes who directs the first cut, who must be consulted, who holds final cutting authority, and which editing interference is prohibited.","remaining_difference":"It governs a single production chain rather than a comparative hiring contest and may preclude the proposed format during a protected director's-cut period.","source_ids":["S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Compared with an ordinary competing-edit marketplace or informal paid edit test, adding equal common-source access, auditable paid-resource caps, preregistered multi-criterion and initially blinded review, independent error appeal, documentary safeguarding constraints, bounded assignment authority, and mandatory ex-post review will produce a more repeatable and appeal-resilient stewardship decision without greater participant or labor harm. Competition itself and documentary edit experimentation are not distinctive.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The dry run is technically straightforward: S7 documents restricted projects and granular permissions, and S8 establishes that professional editing labor can be budgeted. S5 supplies recognizable safeguarding principles. The main uncertainties are workflow and authority rather than software: anonymization may fail, aesthetic inter-rater reliability is unknown, privileged administrators can defeat access symmetry, logs do not prove off-platform labor, and S6 may prohibit parallel editing on covered projects during the director's-cut period. Production-specific contracts, releases, collective-bargaining coverage, insurance, retention rules, and safeguarding review must be checked before any real footage is used.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"The intervention could reduce labor exploitation and participant harm in the narrow situations where competing edits are used, but exact prevalence and realized benefit are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Documentary organizations express demand for ethical, supported post-production exploration, but no source requests or endorses rival final-cut selection.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"The governance bundle plausibly improves on S1's thin contest model, but no comparative result shows superiority to a sequential edit, collaborative workshop, or conventional paid test.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Competing video edits already exist commercially, while most remaining components adapt established permissions, contractual authority, ethics, review, and labor controls.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Small equalized media packages, restricted workspaces, separate submissions, blinded playback, and permission controls are available with current tools; reliable off-platform labor auditing remains harder.","source_ids":["S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A rights-holding employer and designated final-cut authority can potentially authorize a dry run, but DGA-protected editing rights and project contracts can override that authority.","source_ids":["S6"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Problem and adjacent-practice evidence exists, but there is no intervention trial, reliability estimate, documented adopter commitment, or production-specific authority record.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Payment, restricted cleared footage, halt conditions, independent appeal, and no public release materially limit downside, although duplicated labor, trust damage, access leakage, and participant misrepresentation remain possible.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"The software pattern is replicable, but each documentary requires separate rights, consent, safeguarding, labor, rubric, and authority analysis, while parallel editing inherently duplicates scarce labor.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One no-release dry run: two paid editors, one matched-labor sequential comparator, limited assistant support, three reviewers, a procedural reviewer, safeguarding and counsel review, workspace setup, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Each editor receives 24–40 paid hours.","Loaded professional rates exceed the BLS employee mean.","Footage is already cleared and conformed; no new filming, translation, transcription, or participant contact is needed.","Review, counsel, safeguarding, benefits, software, storage, and overhead account for most cost above direct editor wages."],"source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Create reusable rulebook, contracts and releases checklist, rubric and appeal templates, secure workspace architecture, log-retention procedure, panel training, and labor/safeguarding review for production use.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Templates require jurisdiction- and agreement-specific legal review.","No custom editing platform is developed.","Security configuration and independent process administration are included.","The wide range reflects absent vendor quotes and production-specific collective-bargaining obligations."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Run one production-grade competing-assembly round with two or three editors, paid assistants, panel review, secure media operations, debrief, appeal reserve, and post-contest assessment.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Five-minute assemblies are produced from a bounded conformed packet rather than an entire feature archive.","Editors and assistants are paid for all authorized time.","The estimate excludes the eventual full final cut and distribution deliverables.","Sensitive footage can require additional counsel, safeguarding, security, or insurance costs."],"source_ids":["S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operate four to eight production-grade rounds per year with a part-time program owner, independent reviewers, secure storage, audits, appeals, annual evaluation, and template maintenance.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Each round remains within the operational-launch scope.","No dedicated custom software engineering team is maintained.","A portfolio operator can reuse training and governance templates.","Actual frequency, union coverage, footage sensitivity, and reviewer rates are unknown."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Direct commercial prior art verifies competing edits, and two research programs document material documentary ethics, resource-pressure, representation, and participant-harm problems; the exact rivalry-abuse prevalence remains an evidence gap.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Sundance is a credible documentary post-production funder/operator, and DGA rules identify the employer, producer, and deal-memo final-cut designee as relevant authorizers. Demand for this exact contest is absent, so this gate establishes credibility and authority pathways, not adoption commitment.","source_ids":["S2","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining governance bundle can be compared with sequential editing and ordinary paid edit tests on blinded-review reliability, rank stability, feasibility prediction, disputes, unpaid or unlogged labor, safety incidents, and cost.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A two-editor, previously cleared, five-minute, no-release dry run is reversible and can preregister comparators, thresholds, halt rules, and falsifiers.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The safe synthetic or previously cleared dry run is plausible, but the evidence packet lacks production-specific contracts, releases, DGA status, labor terms, final-cut designation, participant-risk review, and confirmation that parallel edits would not constitute prohibited cutting behind.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"BLS wages and current tool capabilities support order-of-magnitude bands, but no quotes establish freelance or union editor rates, counsel, safeguarding, insurance, secure storage, reviewer, or appeal costs for an actual production.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Secure a documentary production partner and first obtain written clearance from the rights holder, director or DGA counsel as applicable, labor representative, and safeguarding lead. Then preregister a no-release crossover dry run using two previously cleared 20–30-minute packets. Two volunteer professional editors receive equal pay, 24–40 logged hours, identical tools, and five-minute deliverables; a matched-cost sequential director-editor assembly is the principal comparator, and the production's historical paid-test procedure is a documentary comparator where records exist. Three conflict-screened reviewers score anonymized cuts twice after a 14-day washout, followed by a separately recorded feasibility review. Measure inter-rater and test-retest reliability, identity-reveal rank changes, predicted completion feasibility, access and labor deviations, appealable errors, safeguarding findings, participant or staff objections, governance overhead, and total cost. Before viewing results, set minimum acceptable reliability, a maximum overhead fraction, and zero tolerance for unpaid labor, unauthorized access, or material participant-safety violations. Falsify the intervention if rankings are materially unstable, identity disclosure changes the winner without documented feasibility evidence, the governed round produces no additional decision-relevant structural variation over the sequential comparator, governance cost exceeds its preregistered ceiling, or labor, rights, relationship, or participant harms exceed the comparator.","blocking_evidence":["No production-specific confirmation of footage rights, releases, director creative rights, final-cut authority, labor agreement coverage, credit obligations, or permission to run parallel edits.","No documentary producer, funder, union, editor, or safeguarding organization has expressed willingness to adopt or host the exact contest.","No prevalence evidence quantifies footage withholding, resource capture, off-book labor, audience manipulation, disparagement, collusion, or appeals failures in documentary editor selection.","No live evidence establishes rubric reliability, successful anonymization, feasibility-prediction validity, incremental value over sequential editing, or net labor and participant effects.","No vendor or partner quotes validate loaded professional labor, counsel, safeguarding, insurance, security, storage, panel, and appeal costs."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not measured. This bounded search establishes only that the central competing-edit mechanism substantially collides with EditorDuel and that documentary edit labs, ethics frameworks, contractual post-production governance, and permissioned media tools cover major components separately. It does not establish whether the complete integrated governance bundle has appeared elsewhere.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain written production-specific authority, labor, rights, release, and safeguarding clearance for a no-release dry run.","Obtain a documented host commitment from a documentary producer, funder, lab, or commissioning organization and voluntary paid participation from two editors.","Preregister matched-cost sequential and historical paid-test comparators, reviewer-reliability thresholds, overhead ceiling, halt rules, and falsifiers.","Run the blinded repeated-review dry run and report all rank reversals, access and labor deviations, appeals, feasibility predictions, safety findings, relationship effects, and costs.","Reject or materially redesign the proposal if reliability, incremental information, authority compliance, labor integrity, or participant-safety thresholds fail."],"reason":"Web research can establish the problem context, authority constraints, technical ingredients, costs at broad order of magnitude, and substantial prior-art collision. The remaining claim—whether the integrated governance bundle yields more reliable and safer documentary stewardship decisions than sequential or ordinary test editing—requires proprietary production documents, stakeholder commitments, and a live paid comparison. Those questions cannot be resolved by further bounded web search."},"proposal_index":1}