{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__film_media_production:P3:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__film_media_production","search_queries":["official film distribution agreement minimum guarantee release commitment rights reversion sales agent guide","film distribution rights auction highest bidder distribution license","independent film distribution agreement warehousing rights reversion release obligations accessibility captions official","antitrust film distribution exclusive territorial licensing competition foreclosure official","site:documentary.org distribution agreement filmmaker rights reversion minimum guarantee audit release commitment","site:filmindependent.org distribution agreement rights reversion filmmaker distributor release","film rights marketplace bid auction distributors platform rights trade bidding","site:justice.gov bid rigging indicators procurement auctions official","IFTA international standard terms distribution license agreement minimum guarantee release schedule audit rights official","site:ifta-online.org model international licensing agreement distribution rights minimum guarantee","BFI distribution funding guidelines accessibility subtitles audio description release plan distributor official 2025","producer film distribution agreement minimum performance requirements reversion rights official guide","documentary producers alliance distribution guide rights reversion expenses audit transparency distributor 2024","film distribution agreement producer beware expense cap performance clause reversion authoritative","site:documentary.org distribution contracts expenses accounting release rights term territory","site:law-arts.org film distribution agreement reversion performance obligations","WIPO From Script to Screen second edition publication date Rob H Aft"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"From Script to Screen: Copyright for Audiovisual Industry Professionals — A Training Tool","publisher":"World Intellectual Property Organization","url":"https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-cr-film-script-to-screen-en-from-script-to-screen.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2022","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Territorial distributors market films to audiences while sales agents license territorial rights.","Distribution agreements commonly specify territory, language, term, minimum guarantees, delivery and recoupment.","Poor drafting, delivery disputes and unclear responsibilities can cancel transactions or generate litigation.","The guide documents a litigated case involving an $11 million minimum guarantee and refusal to distribute, demonstrating that payment and exploitation failures are not merely hypothetical."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"IFTA Model Agreements","publisher":"Independent Film & Television Alliance","url":"https://ifta-online.org/mila/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"undated; current page accessed 2026-08-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["IFTA describes its Model International Licensing Agreements as established, widely adopted industry-standard forms used since the 1980s.","The model agreements are voluntary and must not be used as a basis for collective agreement among competitors.","A rights holder or sales agent can adopt standardized licensing documentation without creating a new technical platform."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"IFTA International Standard Terms, Version 2022","publisher":"Independent Film & Television Alliance","url":"https://ifta-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/IFTA%C2%AE-INTERNATIONAL-STANDARD-TERMS-2022-Final.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2022-01-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Existing standard terms already define exclusive grants by territory, term and language while reserving ungranted rights.","The terms cover minimum guarantees, complete records, statements, audit rights, release requirements, outside release dates and diligent exploitation.","They preserve licensor ownership of delivery materials, provide access to distributor-created versions, require return or destruction of materials, and revert rights after termination or expiration.","This is close prior art for most contractual performance and reversion components, although it does not prescribe the proposed sealed first-price selection process."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Distribution Contracts","publisher":"International Documentary Association","url":"https://www.documentary.org/feature/distribution-contracts","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"1990-07-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Independent producers are advised to bound grants by territory, term and media and to reserve all ungranted rights.","Accounting detail, audit rights, notice-and-cure, termination, bankruptcy reversion and control of original materials address recognized distribution risks.","The article reports that affirmative best-efforts obligations rarely appear in distribution contracts and that promotional promises may be absent from the executed agreement.","Distribution economics and remedies materially affect producer returns, but the source does not quantify current prevalence."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Types of Financial Assurances","publisher":"SAG-AFTRA","url":"https://www.sagaftra.org/contracts-industry-resources/financial-assurances/types-financial-assurances","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated; accessed 2026-08-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An identifiable industry authority already requires chain-of-title review and security interests covering film distribution rights.","When a distributor acquires exploitation rights, SAG-AFTRA may require a Distributor’s Assumption Agreement transferring primary residual-reporting and payment responsibility.","Collection-account, guaranty and secured-interest mechanisms demonstrate operational feasibility for financial safeguards, while also showing that union and lien priorities cannot be overridden by auction rules."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Applying for BFI and Film4 Future Takes","publisher":"British Film Institute","url":"https://www.bfi.org.uk/get-funding-support/create-films-tv-or-new-formats-storytelling/future-takes/applying-bfi-film4-future-takes","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["BFI and Film4 are identifiable funders with authority to impose delivery and distribution conditions on funded projects.","Their conditions require UK distribution agreements to provide soft-subtitling and audio-description materials across cinemas and specified home/VOD formats.","They hold back 5% of funding pending delivery of specified materials, including access materials and an audited cost report, demonstrating expressed demand for enforceable milestones rather than unsupported promises.","Applicants must document chain of title, budget feasibility and public benefit."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Procurement Collusion Strike Force","publisher":"U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division","url":"https://www.justice.gov/atr/procurement-collusion-strike-force","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"undated; statistics current through 2026-04-30","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Bid rigging, price fixing and territorial/customer allocation are recognized ways to subvert competitive bidding.","DOJ uses analytics to identify signs for further investigation, supporting the proposal's referral-not-verdict treatment of anomaly screens.","The page reports more than 200 investigations and more than 85 convictions or guilty pleas in its governmental scope, showing that collusion risk matters, but it does not establish prevalence in private film-rights auctions.","Private film licensing requires jurisdiction-specific competition advice; the procurement program itself is not an enforcement or adjudication mechanism for this proposed auction."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Moovicart Buyer: Theatrical Rights Trading","publisher":"Moovicart","url":"https://www.moovicart.com/pages/buyer","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"2023","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A first-party commercial marketplace explicitly offers theatrical-rights trading through syndication, fixed-price and outright-bidding options.","The product claims to connect filmmakers and film buyers and shorten deal completion, demonstrating both an identifiable adopter class and direct product prior art for bidding on film rights.","The public page does not document sealed first-price rules, ownership verification, accessibility floors, secured performance, appeals, automatic reversion or comparative outcomes."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"The problem visibly exists at the contract and transaction level. WIPO documents the territorial licensing workflow, warns about poorly drafted agreements and describes a large minimum-guarantee/non-distribution dispute. IDA identifies missing exploitation promises, opaque accounting, material custody, default and insolvency as recurring contract concerns. IFTA's detailed release, audit, termination and reversion provisions independently confirm that the industry treats these risks as governable. The evidence does not measure how often the highest bidder underperforms or the aggregate economic loss.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Rights holders and sales agents are identifiable decision-makers; IFTA reports widespread use of standardized international licensing forms. BFI and Film4 expressly require accessibility, delivery and audit conditions, while SAG-AFTRA requires chain-of-title and financial-assurance documentation. Moovicart serves filmmakers and distributors through outright bidding. These establish authority and demand for the ingredients, but no source expresses demand for this exact integrated auction protocol.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"IFTA Model International Licensing Agreements and 2022 Standard Terms","similarity":"They already combine bounded exclusive rights, minimum guarantees, release requirements and dates, diligent exploitation, standardized accounting, audit, default, termination, material return and rights reversion.","remaining_difference":"They do not require selection by a sealed first-price auction, beneficial-ownership screens, a common bidder data room, independent procedural appeal, collusion analytics or an automatic challenger competition for reverted rights.","source_ids":["S2","S3"]},{"name":"Moovicart outright bidding for theatrical rights","similarity":"It directly implements online bidding to trade theatrical film-distribution rights among filmmakers and buyers.","remaining_difference":"Its public materials do not show the proposed fixed capability floor, accessibility obligations, performance security, independent opening and review, anti-collusion referral, foreclosure review or milestone-triggered reversion.","source_ids":["S8"]},{"name":"WIPO territorial-distribution guidance and model deal structure","similarity":"It describes sales agents licensing distributors by territory and documents terms for minimum guarantee, language, term, delivery, expenses, accounting and dispute handling.","remaining_difference":"It is guidance and model documentation, not a governed auction or evidence that auction price predicts accountable release.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"Existing funder and guild safeguards","similarity":"BFI/Film4 use accessibility deliverables and a funding holdback; SAG-AFTRA uses chain-of-title review, distributor assumption, collection accounts, guaranties and secured interests.","remaining_difference":"These safeguards protect particular funder and labor obligations and do not allocate the distribution license or compare bidders.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For a genuinely contested, narrowly bounded territorial license, an eligibility-gated sealed first-price auction coupled to predefined release/accessibility milestones, proportionate performance security and operationally usable automatic reversion will produce more timely, auditable and accessible exploitation than either bilateral highest-MG negotiation or a price-only auction, without materially reducing independent qualified participation or risk-adjusted licensor proceeds. This comparative outcome claim—not the individual contract or auction mechanisms—is the remaining falsifiable distinction.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Implementation is technically conventional: secure data rooms, sealed submissions, standardized forms, record retention and contract milestones require no unproven technology. IFTA, BFI and SAG-AFTRA demonstrate workable release, audit, accessibility, title and security mechanisms. Important unresolved workflow and authority questions remain: local title and lien priority, privacy treatment of ownership and bid data, competition-law review boundaries, security sizing, minimum viable bidder count, appeals timing, and whether returned assets actually permit replacement distribution. DOJ supports anomaly referral but not private-film adjudication. No source provides field evidence that the full bundle works or improves distribution outcomes.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Failure can suppress release, access and revenue over an exclusive term, but prevalence and aggregate loss are not quantified.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Funders, guilds, rights holders and marketplace participants visibly demand adjacent safeguards or transaction infrastructure; pull for the exact auction bundle is absent.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6","S8"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Most safeguards are already present in standard licensing practice, and direct bidding prior art exists. No comparative performance evidence establishes an advantage for combining them.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The ingredients substantially collide with existing standards and products; only the comparative causal performance of the integrated bundle remains distinctive.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The process uses mature contracting, data-room, accounting, security and sealed-bid capabilities. Difficulty is governance and execution rather than technology.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A verified rights holder or authorized sales agent can run the process, while funder, union, lienholder and competition constraints require consent and jurisdiction-specific review.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S6","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Public sources establish practice and feasibility but provide no matched auction outcomes, bidder participation data, security-default data or comparative release performance.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S8"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Notice-and-cure, security, retained title to materials, access to created assets and rights reversion can bound downside if drafted and operationalized correctly.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Standardized forms and digital bidding can be reused across titles and territories, but bespoke title, law, language, accessibility, lien and release-market review limits uniform scaling.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One preregistered synthetic tabletop covering rule drafting, six to ten conflict-screened industry/legal reviewers, two comparator processes, adjudication coding and a short findings report.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No live rights are transferred.","Synthetic bids and ownership structures avoid confidential commercial data.","Approximately 150-350 combined hours of entertainment counsel, auction administration, reviewer and analysis time.","Travel, platform development and participant opportunity costs beyond modest honoraria are excluded."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Jurisdiction-specific contract adaptation, title and beneficial-ownership diligence, secure data-room configuration, bid custody, appeal protocol, accessibility and asset schedules, security instrument negotiation and training for one pilot.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing commercial data-room and e-signature services are used.","Minimum guarantee, escrow principal, surety collateral and distribution/P&A spend are transfer payments or working capital and excluded from intervention cost.","One narrow territory-window and one title are included.","No litigation, regulatory filing or custom auction software is required."],"source_ids":["S1","S3","S5","S6"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Administer one live narrow-license pilot through qualification, bid opening, review, contract execution, milestone setup and initial compliance checks.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Three to six independent qualified bids.","External entertainment counsel, title review, bid custodian and limited competition advice are required.","The rights holder already owns usable masters and accessibility source assets.","The license price, performance-security principal and release campaign are excluded."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate two to five bounded auctions or challenger windows annually, maintain records and screens, review statements and milestones, administer limited appeals, and conduct annual ex-post review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing templates are reused after the first pilot.","No major dispute, forensic investigation or litigation occurs.","Audit depth is risk-based rather than a full forensic audit for every license.","Platform fees, counsel rates and transaction complexity vary substantially by territory."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent official, standard and industry sources document release, accounting, delivery, default and rights-control failures that the intervention targets.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Verified rights holders and authorized sales agents control licensing; IFTA members use standard forms, and BFI/Film4 and SAG-AFTRA demonstrate funder and guild authority over relevant conditions.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim can compare the integrated governed auction against bilateral highest-MG negotiation and a price-only auction on release, accounting, accessibility, participation and proceeds.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A synthetic, preregistered tabletop can test rule operability and reviewer reliability without transferring rights or exposing a real film.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The synthetic tabletop is within research authority and creates no license, sanction or collusion finding. A live pilot must remain gated on verified title, lienholder/union/funder consent, privacy controls and local competition advice.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The scope can be bounded, but the eight sources provide task requirements rather than current vendor, counsel, surety or administration prices. Bands are resource-equivalent estimates with low confidence and exclude the license price, security principal and P&A.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5","S6"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Preregister and run a synthetic tabletop with six to ten conflict-screened participants spanning rights holders/sales agents, distributors, entertainment counsel, accessibility delivery and auction administration. Randomly assign matched synthetic title-and-bid scenarios to (A) ordinary bilateral highest-MG negotiation using an IFTA-style agreement, (B) a price-only sealed auction, or (C) the proposed governed auction. Include concealed affiliates, a high-price/low-capacity bidder, an innocent correlated-bid pair, unequal-information traps, a missed release milestone and an asset-transfer/replacement case. Primary measures: inter-reviewer qualification agreement (target kappa at least 0.70), correct handling of predefined eligibility and rollback cases (at least 85%), collusion-referral sensitivity (at least 80%) with innocent-pair false referrals no more than 15%, time and resource cost, number of unresolved discretionary decisions, simulated independent-bidder retention, and whether a blinded replacement distributor can reconstruct the required package in at least 90% of reversion cases. Falsify operability if qualification agreement is below 0.60, any reviewer changes material rules after seeing prices, false referrals exceed 25%, fewer than three independent qualified bidders remain in most scenarios, security alternatives systematically exclude the otherwise capable small-distributor profiles, or replacement reconstruction succeeds in less than 70% of cases. Even success would justify only a consented short-term live pilot; comparative release and proceeds effects require field data.","blocking_evidence":["No comparative dataset links highest compliant bids to realized release, accessibility, accounting or asset-return performance.","No evidence measures how the added eligibility and security requirements affect independent-bidder participation or bid values.","No live test shows that automatic reversion occurs early enough or that preserved materials and records permit practical replacement distribution.","No jurisdiction has been selected for title, privacy, competition, insolvency, surety, accessibility and collective-bargaining review.","No current vendor quotes support the resource bands.","Public sources do not establish demand for the exact integrated protocol.","Bid and ownership histories needed to validate anomaly screens are likely proprietary and sparse.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size and realized impact remain unmeasured."],"research_disposition":"PILOT_OR_ADOPTION_INQUIRY","world_novelty_boundary":"This evaluation searched public web materials and relied on exactly eight direct sources. It found substantial collision with established IFTA licensing terms, WIPO/IDA guidance, existing financial and accessibility safeguards, and a commercial theatrical-rights bidding marketplace. It did not search patent databases exhaustively, proprietary contracts, confidential auction records or non-public marketplace functionality. Accordingly, world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size and realized impact are explicitly unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure a rights-holder or authorized sales-agent partner and obtain approvals from affected funders, unions, lienholders and counsel.","Complete the preregistered three-arm tabletop and meet the stated agreement, error, participation and replacement-readiness thresholds.","Obtain jurisdiction-specific opinions on title authority, beneficial-ownership data, privacy, competition review, security enforcement, insolvency and reversion.","Collect current quotes for counsel, administration, data room, ownership checks, accessibility quality control, audit and surety costs.","Design a consented short-term pilot with at least three verified independent qualified bidders and a predeclared non-auction fallback.","Measure timely release, meaningful availability, accessibility usability, accounting completeness, net licensor proceeds, bidder participation, disputes and reversion outcomes against matched conventional deals.","Validate any anomaly screen on historical or simulated film-rights data and preserve independent adjudication; never treat a screen as proof."],"reason":"Bounded web research has answered the existence, authority, prior-art and basic feasibility questions. The remaining incremental claim is an outcome claim requiring practitioner fieldwork, proprietary bid/performance data and ultimately a live controlled transaction. Additional web search cannot establish whether the integrated process improves accountable release without impairing participation or proceeds; under the controller rule this requires STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED, and every STOP is marked non-repairable."},"proposal_index":3}