{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__film_media_production:P4:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__film_media_production","search_queries":["film festival submission selection transparency programmer conflict of interest official rules","film festival programmers submissions lobbying access favoritism research","film festival alliance best practices submissions selection transparency","festival selection process double screening random assignment films submissions","site:festival.sundance.org submissions rules 2026 selection process programmers","site:tribecafilm.com festival submissions rules conflict of interest selection 2026","site:bfi.org.uk film festival submission selection process programmers conflict interest","peer reviewed film festival programming selection gatekeepers submissions study","film festival official selection committee two screeners conflict of interest recusal submissions","site:idfa.nl submission regulations selection committee conflict interest","site:filmfreeway.com festival selection process every film two reviewers official festival","film festival code ethics programmer conflict of interest gifts submissions official","site:festival.sundance.org 2026 submissions selected films 16000 official","site:sundance.org festival submissions 15000 selected films official 2025","site:tribecafilm.com 2026 festival submissions received selected official","site:idfa.nl 2025 submissions number selected films official"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Film Festival Best Practices","publisher":"Film Festival Alliance","url":"https://filmfestivalalliance.org/advocacy/best-practices","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2024-10-31","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Professional festivals have an expressed need for transparent submission and selection policies.","Guidance calls for publishing mission, programmatic interests, formats, fees, waivers, deadlines, confidentiality protections, invited-versus-unsolicited review processes, and the minimum number of reviewers.","The guidance identifies festival organizers as potential adopters and trust with filmmakers, distributors, and agents as an intended benefit."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"2025 Sundance Film Festival Unveils Short Film Program Presented by Vimeo","publisher":"Sundance Institute","url":"https://www.sundance.org/blogs/2025-sundance-film-festival-unveils-short-film-program-presented-by-vimeo/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2024-12-11","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Festival screening slots can be extremely scarce: 57 Sundance shorts were selected from 11,153 submissions.","The selected slate was intentionally curated for varied styles, subjects, countries, and audiences.","Selection can confer substantial discovery and professional-attention value."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Submitting Your Project to the 2026 Sundance Film Festival: FAQ","publisher":"Sundance Institute","url":"https://www.sundance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2026_Submissions_FAQ.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2025-04","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A major festival describes submission fees as supporting a rigorous and democratic review process.","Sundance states that early, official, and late submissions are screened identically, while fees vary by deadline.","Published rules already standardize deadlines, categories, completeness requirements, files, and submission channels."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"BFI London Film Festival Assistant Programmer Job Pack","publisher":"British Film Institute","url":"https://bfijobsandopportunities.bfi.org.uk/jobspecs/2401LFFAssistantProgrammer.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2018","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A major festival operationally assigns open submissions to viewers, collects notes in a database, and coordinates second viewing.","Open-submission management requires dedicated staff, a budget, freelance viewers, and work under tight deadlines.","Selection combines structured workflow with programmer discussion and curatorial decision-making."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Festival Entry Regulations 2026","publisher":"International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam","url":"https://professionals.idfa.nl/program/festival-entries/festival-entry-regulations/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["IDFA limits review to a controlled submission version and rejects emailed screeners unless requested.","IDFA requires disclosure of possible conflicts connecting a film to team members and allows eligibility exceptions only after board examination.","Existing festival practice already distinguishes standard rules from documented, authorized exceptions."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Terms of Submission—Official Selection 2026","publisher":"CinefestOZ Film Festival","url":"https://cinefestoz.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Official-Selection-2026-Submission-TCs.pdf","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"2026-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["CinefestOZ limits materials considered during selection and restricts screeners to selection use.","Selection is conducted by a programming team and film-selection committee.","A conflicted team member is withdrawn from decision-making, demonstrating practical recusal feasibility."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Pre-Jury Transparency in Short Film Festivals Organized in Turkey within the Framework of Gatekeeping Theory","publisher":"Topkapı Journal of Social Sciences","url":"https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tjssd/article/1650019","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2025-07-18","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A mixed-methods study examined public information for 32 established, non-thematic Turkish short-film festivals.","Seventeen of the 32 festivals did not publicly disclose pre-jury members.","The study identifies incomplete transparency, independence, and participant trust as visible concerns and recommends transparency policies and digital tools."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Socioeconomic Factors of National Representation in the Global Film Festival Circuit: Skewed Toward the Large and Wealthy, but Small Countries Can Beat the Odds","publisher":"arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10755","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2024-07-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Analysis of more than 20,000 films and nearly 600 festivals found that films from large, affluent countries dominate festival screens.","Festival portfolio composition has measurable cultural-diversity consequences.","Portfolio-level representation is a legitimate outcome dimension, although this study does not test the proposed selection procedure."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Scarcity and gatekeeping visibly matter: Sundance selected 57 of 11,153 short-film submissions, research finds systematic representation differences, and a 32-festival study found non-disclosure of pre-juries at 17 festivals. Film Festival Alliance guidance expressly treats selection transparency and reviewer disclosure as minimum professional standards. However, the specific allegations motivating this candidate—private pitches, gifts, sponsor pressure, repeated meetings, selective deadline exceptions, and intermediary-linked outcomes—were not established by the eight opened sources. The externally verified problem is opaque, high-stakes, capacity-constrained selection, not the prevalence of every proposed abuse pathway.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Film Festival Alliance explicitly addresses established and emerging festival organizers and states that transparent practices support trust with filmmakers, distributors, and agents. Sundance describes rigor and democratic treatment as process goals. BFI, IDFA, and CinefestOZ demonstrate identifiable organizations with operational or rulemaking authority over assignments, materials, conflicts, exceptions, and selection. This establishes credible adopter and authorizer classes, but no organization has expressed demand for this exact integrated pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Film Festival Alliance Best Practices","similarity":"Already calls for a published mission, categories, deadlines, fees and waivers, confidentiality, a description of invited and unsolicited review, and disclosure of the minimum number of reviewers.","remaining_difference":"It does not prescribe random double assignment, screener workload ceilings, a quality-floor-plus-portfolio selection stage, sampled process audits, procedural appeals, campaign-contact prohibitions, or comparative outcome testing.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"BFI London Film Festival open-submission workflow","similarity":"Uses allocated viewing, stored notes, second viewing, dedicated coordination, a submission budget, and curatorial discussion.","remaining_difference":"The opened document does not establish randomized double assignment for every eligible film, workload equality, a campaign firewall, formal procedural appeals, independent audit sampling, or a preregistered portfolio method.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"IDFA 2026 entry and conflict rules","similarity":"Uses a controlled submission version and channel, conflict disclosure, eligibility rules, fee waivers, and board-authorized exceptions.","remaining_difference":"The rules place some disclosure burden on entrants and do not show random assignment, universal double review, workload caps, threshold-plus-portfolio selection, independent process auditing, or appeal simulation.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"CinefestOZ 2026 selection terms","similarity":"Bounds selection materials, uses a programming team and selection committee, and withdraws conflicted individuals from decisions.","remaining_difference":"The terms do not disclose randomized allocation, reviewer counts, workload ceilings, divergence review, campaign restrictions, audit sampling, portfolio constraints, or procedural appeals.","source_ids":["S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Compared with a festival's current open-submission workflow, a preregistered package combining standardized campaign access, random double assignment under workload ceilings, recorded recusals, third review for material divergence, an individual qualification floor, disclosed slate-level portfolio constraints, sampled process audit, and process-only appeals will reduce material treatment discrepancies and access-linked variance without unacceptable loss of curatorial fit, reviewer attention, or decision timeliness. This is contrastive and falsifiable, but its advantage over the adjacent practices has not been demonstrated.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The constituent workflow elements are technically ordinary and independently demonstrated: structured intake and identical deadline treatment, assigned viewing and second review, databases and notes, bounded materials, conflict disclosure and recusal, and board-controlled exceptions. A shadow pilot can operate on existing authorized screeners without changing public outcomes. Feasibility remains unverified for reviewer agreement, random-assignment expertise mismatches, portfolio-rule stability, audit interpretation, workload growth, privacy and employment requirements, and the boundary between correctable process error and non-appealable curatorial judgment.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Selection is highly scarce and can affect discovery, professional attention, trust, and cultural representation; nevertheless, realized improvement from the intervention is untested.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7","S8"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"An industry alliance explicitly calls for selection transparency and multiple-reviewer disclosure, while major festivals invest in rigorous review, assignments, second viewing, and conflict controls. Pull for the exact full package is not documented.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Random universal double assignment, workload ceilings, quality-floor-plus-portfolio selection, audit, and process-only appeals could improve consistency beyond current adjacent practices, but comparative benefit and burden require a live shadow test.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"No opened source combines every proposed component, but many core components are established festival practices or guidance. Distinctiveness lies in integration and tested governance performance, not invention of the individual mechanisms.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing festival workflows already support controlled files, assignments, notes, second review, conflicts, recusals, and exceptions. Randomization, logs, and audit samples require modest workflow configuration rather than novel technology.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Festival boards, directors, and programming teams have the relevant rulemaking and selection authority. A shadow pilot preserves curatorial authority and public outcomes, reducing authorization risk, although no partner commitment is evidenced.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The problem, adopter class, and component feasibility have external support, but the decisive causal and cost evidence requires proprietary process records and a live shadow comparison.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S7","S8"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"A shadow design, process-only appeals, recorded exceptions, audit sampling, and rollback before official decisions provide meaningful error containment. Misuse of portfolio criteria or audit anomalies remains possible.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The workflow uses standard digital intake and reviewer operations, but universal double review and independent audit scale linearly with submissions; Sundance-scale volume illustrates why workload and cost may become limiting.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and execute a shadow pilot on approximately 60–120 already-authorized short-film submissions, including protocol drafting, random double assignment, divergence reviews, panel portfolio exercise, a sampled audit, appeal simulations, analysis, and a short report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Average short-film viewing plus scoring time is 25–40 minutes per review.","Each film receives two reviews and approximately 15–25% receive a third review.","Existing submission files, screening platform, staff supervision, and secure storage are available.","Resource-equivalent costing includes paid or fully loaded reviewer, coordinator, auditor, and analyst time even if a festival normally uses volunteers.","No official outcome is changed and no new entrant work is requested."],"source_ids":["S3","S4"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Configure one small competition section after a successful shadow test: finalize rules, conflict register, reviewer assignment logic, scoring and portfolio forms, audit logs, appeal templates, privacy controls, staff training, and communications.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The festival can adapt its existing submission platform and database rather than procure custom software.","The policy and privacy review is bounded to one jurisdiction and one section.","This excludes screening labor for the live edition and any new public-facing platform build."],"source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Run the governed process for one live competition section receiving approximately 500–1,500 short-film submissions, including two reviews per eligible film, divergence review, coordination, panel selection, audit sampling, process appeals, and post-edition analysis.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Average review duration is 25–40 minutes plus scoring and notes.","Approximately 15–25% of films trigger third review.","The festival supplies existing intake, secure screener hosting, and senior programming infrastructure.","Resource-equivalent costs include compensated screening labor even where local practice relies partly on volunteers.","Complex rights disputes, litigation, accessibility remediation, and exhibition production are outside this process estimate."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Repeat one governed competition section each edition, including reviewer recruitment and training, double screening, divergence handling, conflict administration, audit, procedural appeals, monitoring, and recalibration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Submission volume remains 500–1,500 shorts per edition.","Rules and software need incremental maintenance rather than complete redesign.","No more than a small number of process appeals require independent review.","The largest recurring resource is screening and coordination labor, which grows roughly with eligible submission volume."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Extreme slot scarcity, incomplete pre-jury transparency, gatekeeping effects, and professional calls for process disclosure are externally supported. Prevalence of gifts, lobbying, sponsor pressure, and intermediary favoritism specifically remains unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7","S8"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Festival boards, artistic directors, programming teams, and organizations such as BFI, IDFA, CinefestOZ, and Film Festival Alliance are identifiable credible adopters or authorizers with relevant operational authority.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim specifies an integrated package, a current-process comparator, measurable discrepancies and access-linked variance, and countervailing outcomes for curatorial fit, attention, and timeliness.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 60–120-film, one-sidebar shadow pilot can be preregistered, use existing authorized materials, preserve official outcomes, and report explicit process and burden measures.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is internal, consented, non-public, and does not alter official selection. It remains conditional on festival authorization, secure access, confidentiality, documented conflict handling, and jurisdiction-specific privacy and labor review.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"Four bottom-up resource-equivalent bands are scoped by submission volume, review count, viewing time, coordination, audit, and existing infrastructure. Confidence is low for deployment costs because no source supplies directly comparable wage, vendor, or pilot-cost data.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Secure one festival partner and preregister a shadow comparison on 60–120 opt-in short-film submissions already authorized for review. Comparator A is the festival's ordinary selection workflow applied to the same files; intervention B is standardized inputs, random double assignment under a caseload ceiling, recorded recusals, third review for preregistered divergence, an individual threshold, disclosed portfolio constraints, sampled process audit, and simulated process-only appeals. Measure completion and missing-review rates, time per film, reviewer agreement, divergence causes, recusal and exception frequency, expertise-mismatch reassignments, threshold stability, documented reasons for portfolio additions, audit discrepancies, appeal correction rates, slate overlap and concentration, and blind panel ratings of program coherence. Predeclare failure if B does not reduce material process discrepancies, inter-review agreement is no better or materially worse, more than 20% of assignments require expertise correction, portfolio rules repeatedly admit films below the floor, median labor exceeds the baseline by more than 50% without a commensurate discrepancy reduction, appeals regularly reopen taste judgments, or independent auditors cannot reliably distinguish rule breaches from legitimate curation. Do not change official outcomes or infer festival-scale impact from this test.","blocking_evidence":["No festival-specific baseline records were available for private contacts, invitations, waivers, deadline exceptions, assignments, reviewer loads, recusals, intermediary concentration, or procedural complaints.","No comparative field evidence shows that the integrated package improves treatment consistency, access equality, slate quality, trust, or representation relative to existing festival practice.","No live evidence establishes workable inter-reviewer agreement, expertise-matched randomization, threshold stability, or the reliability of portfolio-reason documentation.","No evidence shows that sampled auditors or process-only appeals can consistently separate correctable rule violations from lawful curatorial judgment.","Cost ranges lack directly comparable 2026 wage, vendor, and festival-pilot data and therefore remain bottom-up resource estimates.","Jurisdiction-specific privacy, employment, collective-bargaining, nondiscrimination, and records-retention requirements require partner review before a live deployment.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not measured."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search assessed only eight direct sources for problem evidence, stakeholder pull, prior practice, and feasibility. It found adjacent established components but did not conduct a systematic global-practice census, patent search, freedom-to-operate analysis, market-size analysis, or realized-impact evaluation. No claim of world novelty or patentability is made.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain written authorization and secure data access from one festival for a non-outcome-changing shadow pilot.","Document the partner's baseline submission channels, invitation practices, waivers, assignments, reviewer loads, conflicts, exceptions, complaints, and selection concentration.","Preregister the same-file baseline comparator, integrated intervention, sampling plan, metrics, privacy controls, and quantitative falsifiers.","Run the 60–120-film pilot and measure agreement, workload, discrepancies, expertise corrections, portfolio-rule behavior, audit reliability, and appeal boundaries.","Obtain blinded curatorial assessment of baseline and intervention slate coherence and document any loss of necessary cultural or production context.","Replace bottom-up cost assumptions with observed staff time, reviewer compensation, platform, audit, legal, and training costs."],"reason":"Bounded web research established a consequential scarce-selection problem, credible authorizers, extensive adjacent prior practice, and a safe bounded pilot. It cannot establish the proposal's remaining comparative causal claim. The decisive evidence requires proprietary festival records, staff participation, and live shadow testing, so further web search is not the appropriate next controller action."},"proposal_index":4}