{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__futurism_foresight","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"brg-foresight-governed-scenario-rehearsal-league","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Governed Scenario Rehearsal League","problem":"A regional infrastructure operator can run only three costly cross-departmental preparedness rehearsals each year, while internal foresight teams and retained consultants submit more candidate disruption scenarios than can be exercised. Selection through executive pitches can reward dramatic narratives, polished presentation, conformity with leadership concerns, duplicated signals, or private lobbying rather than scenarios that expose distinct consequential decisions. Teams can also escalate spending on presentations, coordinate informally around noncompeting themes, or omit stakeholder harms that would weaken their submission.","actors":["Infrastructure operator's resilience steering committee","Internal foresight teams","Qualified external foresight consultants","Independent scenario judges","Audit and red-team staff","Independent appeal reviewer","Operations personnel who would participate in rehearsals","Worker, customer, and community representatives exposed to scenario framing or rehearsal spillovers"],"observable_state":"For each annual cycle, the operator can observe the number of eligible submissions, the three rehearsal slots available, proposal-development resources, overlap among cited signals and causal chains, contacts between entrants and decision-makers, de-identified rubric scores, judge disagreement, appeal records, hidden-test performance, selected-portfolio coverage, rehearsal burdens, and whether the same teams or scenario families repeatedly secure the slots.","consequence":"The limited rehearsal capacity may be assigned to scenarios that are persuasive or strategically positioned but redundant, weakly traceable, or insensitive to affected stakeholders. The operator then learns less about distinct vulnerabilities, teams divert resources into positional competition, and repeated winners can shape future eligibility and scoring in their own favor.","affected_objective":"Use scarce rehearsal capacity to test a complementary set of causally coherent, decision-relevant futures while preserving contestability, limiting competitive waste, and preventing harms to participants and affected stakeholders.","intervention":"Create an annual bounded rivalry for three funded preparedness rehearsals. Before submissions, an independent rulemaking group freezes the purpose, eligibility rules, resource cap, prohibited conduct, evidence requirements, scoring rubric, tie-breaks, disclosure policy, and appeal path. Eligible cross-functional teams submit identity-masked scenario packages containing a causal chain, observable signposts, a decision that changes across futures, disconfirming evidence, stakeholder impacts, and a bounded rehearsal plan. Judges first score each package for causal traceability, decision discrimination, evidentiary transparency, and performance under undisclosed perturbations. Final selection then optimizes the three-scenario portfolio for complementary vulnerabilities rather than simply taking the three highest isolated scores. Top submissions are audited before award; suspicious cross-round overlap or theme rotation is referred for investigation rather than treated as proof. Entrant preparation hours and purchased support are capped, lobbying and deceptive provenance are fouls, final de-identified standings and reasons are released to entrants, and an independent reviewer hears time-boxed appeals. A post-rehearsal review examines realized learning, participant burden, stakeholder harms, redundancy, and winner influence, then recommends whether to revise or retire the next round. Qualified challengers receive a scheduled opportunity in every cycle, while prior winners receive no rulemaking role or automatic renewal.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explicit rivalry purpose","domain_realization":"Discover which candidate futures most usefully discriminate present preparedness decisions, rather than rewarding prediction confidence or storytelling status."},{"archetype_element":"Scarce prize","domain_realization":"Three annual, funded cross-departmental rehearsal slots."},{"archetype_element":"Competitor eligibility boundary","domain_realization":"Prequalified cross-functional internal teams and external consultants that disclose conflicts, methods, sources, and relevant capabilities."},{"archetype_element":"Contest arena boundary","domain_realization":"Scenario construction, signal collection, causal analysis, and rebuttal are allowed; private lobbying, source fabrication, identity leakage, harassment, covert theme allocation, and disclosure of sensitive vulnerabilities are prohibited."},{"archetype_element":"Meaningful scoring","domain_realization":"Frozen scoring covers causal traceability, observable signposts, decision discrimination, disconfirming evidence, stakeholder treatment, and robustness to hidden perturbations; portfolio selection additionally scores complementarity."},{"archetype_element":"Fair process and due process","domain_realization":"Identity-masked submissions, separated rulemakers and judges, documented scoring, entrant debriefs, and an independent time-boxed appeal channel."},{"archetype_element":"Anti-sabotage and anti-collusion guardrail","domain_realization":"Published foul definitions, provenance checks, common screening across all entries, and referral of suspicious overlap or rotation to an inquiry that separately determines intent."},{"archetype_element":"Externality control","domain_realization":"Stakeholder-impact sections, confidentiality review, rehearsal burden limits, participant opt-out protections, and monitoring of operational or community harms."},{"archetype_element":"Escalation damper","domain_realization":"A common cap on entrant preparation hours and purchased presentation support, audited using standardized resource declarations."},{"archetype_element":"Winner power and lock-in review","domain_realization":"No automatic renewal or rulemaking role for winners, recurring challenger access, concentration tracking, and review of repeated control over themes or methods."},{"archetype_element":"Learning and recalibration","domain_realization":"Post-rehearsal comparison of promised decision value with actual learning, followed by explicit rule revision or contest retirement."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"contest_rulebook","role":"Freezes eligibility, legal moves, scoring, tie-breaks, confidentiality requirements, conflicts, and appeals before entrant identities and submissions are known.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, organizers could change eligibility or weights after seeing favored scenarios, and entrants would lack a common basis for challenge."},{"mechanism_slug":"multiple_award_or_portfolio_selection","role":"Allocates three rehearsal slots by the contribution each scenario adds to the portfolio, preserving rivalry while reducing redundant winner-take-all selection.","counterfactual_removal":"Selecting only by individual rank could fund several variants of the same disruption and concentrate influence in one scenario family."},{"mechanism_slug":"ranked_leaderboard_with_audit","role":"Produces de-identified final standings under a frozen rubric and audits leading submissions against sources, calculations, and hidden perturbations before award.","counterfactual_removal":"Published scores alone could crown fabricated, overfit, or irreproducible scenarios and make the visible metric easier to game."},{"mechanism_slug":"spending_cap_or_resource_cap","role":"Caps preparation hours and purchased support so competition turns on analysis within a common resource envelope rather than presentation expenditure.","counterfactual_removal":"Well-resourced teams could escalate proposal production costs that rivals must match without improving the operator's preparedness learning."},{"mechanism_slug":"anti_collusion_monitoring","role":"Applies the same cross-round screens to all entrants for suspiciously repeated signal bundles, reciprocal theme rotation, or coordinated noncompetition, referring anomalies for independent inquiry.","counterfactual_removal":"A field could appear diverse while entrants quietly divide themes or recycle coordinated evidence, and isolated review of each submission would not expose the pattern."},{"mechanism_slug":"sabotage_or_foul_penalty_schedule","role":"Precommits graduated consequences for lobbying judges, leaking identities, misrepresenting provenance, exposing protected information, or interfering with rivals.","counterfactual_removal":"Off-arena conduct could become a viable route to a rehearsal slot because prohibitions would have no predictable enforcement consequence."},{"mechanism_slug":"challenger_access_window","role":"Reopens all slots on a fixed annual cadence to qualified challengers and denies incumbents automatic renewal.","counterfactual_removal":"Prior winners could convert rehearsal experience and executive access into durable control of the operator's foresight agenda."},{"mechanism_slug":"post_contest_impact_review","role":"Tests whether selected scenarios yielded distinct decision learning and whether the contest produced burden, harm, gaming, redundancy, or winner lock-in, then feeds revisions into the next cycle.","counterfactual_removal":"The operator could continue rewarding a proxy that failed in rehearsal because no step evaluates the governance design against downstream outcomes."}],"causal_chain":["Scarce rehearsal slots create rivalrous dependence among teams whose strategic behavior can affect one another's chance of selection.","A frozen rulebook, identity masking, role separation, resource cap, and foul schedule bound entry, effort, influence, and permissible competitive moves.","Multi-criterion scoring and hidden perturbation tests make causal traceability and decision usefulness harder to replace with dramatic presentation or rubric overfitting.","Leader audits and common anti-collusion screens raise the chance that fabricated evidence, coordinated theme allocation, or recycled submissions trigger review before selection.","Portfolio scoring makes contribution to a complementary three-scenario set, rather than isolated rank alone, the route to an award.","Appeals, stakeholder protections, recurring challenger access, and post-rehearsal review constrain arbitrary judgment, exported harm, and winner entrenchment.","Observed rehearsal learning and harms inform revision or retirement of the arena when its winning strategy no longer matches the foresight purpose."],"baseline":"The resilience steering committee solicits scenario pitches, hears presentations with entrant identities visible, and chooses three through deliberation. Teams face no common preparation cap; criteria can be interpreted during deliberation; scenario overlap, provenance, stakeholder burden, and cross-cycle coordination are not systematically audited; and selection provides no independent appeal or precommitted post-rehearsal review.","nearest_rivals":["A facilitated scenario-planning workshop that generates a shared scenario set collaboratively; it may reduce adversarial behavior but does not use governed rivalry to allocate scarce rehearsal slots or expose comparative performance.","A Delphi panel that anonymously ranks candidate disruptions through iterative expert elicitation; it aggregates judgment but does not govern strategic conduct among teams competing to have their scenarios exercised.","A centralized horizon-scanning committee that directly selects scenarios from a signal repository; it avoids entrant competition but concentrates agenda control and provides less structured pressure to develop testable alternatives.","A lottery or rotating allocation of rehearsal slots among qualified teams; it can protect access but does not preferentially select scenarios for causal strength, decision relevance, or portfolio complementarity."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's remaining contrast is the combination of recurring scenario rivalry with explicit arena boundaries, auditable comparative scoring, portfolio-level awards, competitive-waste controls, contestability, and ex-post redesign. Its value depends on that governed coupling; anonymous elicitation, collaborative scenario construction, direct committee choice, or rotation could reproduce individual components without governing rivalry as the selection medium.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The infrastructure operator's resilience steering committee may authorize only a sandboxed evaluation and, after governance and stakeholder review, decide whether to adopt the process. Independent judges may score submissions but cannot alter operations, disclose sensitive findings, impose discipline, or commit rehearsal resources beyond the committee's authorization.","authorized_first_step":"Run a no-stakes retrospective simulation using archived or synthetic scenario packages: freeze a draft rulebook, mask identities, cap evaluator time, score and audit the packages, assemble a three-scenario portfolio, and compare the result with the archived baseline without changing any live rehearsal decision.","excluded_actions":["Changing live preparedness priorities or allocating current rehearsal funds","Publicly ranking identifiable employees, consultants, or teams","Inferring collusion or misconduct from pattern screens without a separate investigation and opportunity to respond","Releasing sensitive infrastructure vulnerabilities or community-specific threat narratives","Imposing employment, contractual, financial, or reputational penalties during the pilot","Using affected stakeholders as involuntary rehearsal participants","Granting winners automatic renewal, proprietary control of shared signals, or authority over future rules"],"halt_rollback":"Halt the pilot if identity masking fails, protected information is exposed, judges have undisclosed entrant conflicts, stakeholder review identifies an unmitigated harm, or the scoring rules require material amendment after submissions are revealed. Quarantine pilot outputs, void all standings, make no personnel or funding use of them, notify affected participants, and revert to the operator's existing selection process pending review."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A review of prior cycles shows that the existing process already uses stable preannounced criteria, independent identity-masked judging, source verification, resource limits, genuine appeals, portfolio complementarity, stakeholder safeguards, recurring open entry, and post-rehearsal recalibration, with no consequential difference left for the proposed arena to introduce.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified if traceable records show no meaningful scarcity or rivalrous dependence—for example, every qualifying scenario can be rehearsed—or if entrant strategy cannot affect selection, and independent assessment finds no consequential association between presentation resources, lobbying access, duplication, provenance weakness, or prior wins and rehearsal choice.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if, in repeated no-stakes tests, masked judges cannot apply the rubric consistently; hidden perturbations do not distinguish causal robustness; portfolio selection does not reduce consequential redundancy; caps merely move effort off-book; audit and appeal burdens consume the rehearsal capacity being protected; or entrants converge more strongly on the published scoring proxy than under the baseline.","risks":["Public scoring may make the rubric a target and increase convergence on easily measured scenario features.","Identity masking may be ineffective when scenario topics, sources, or writing styles reveal teams.","Anti-collusion screens may confuse legitimate shared signals or parallel reasoning with coordination.","Resource caps may favor incumbents that already possess reusable models, data, or presentation assets.","Portfolio complementarity may become discretionary cover for bypassing higher-scoring submissions.","Appeals and audits may slow selection enough to make scenarios stale.","Competitive framing may discourage lawful signal sharing and synthesis across teams.","Sensitive or alarming scenarios may burden workers or communities even when they do not win.","Repeated victories may still create informal agenda power despite formal challenger access.","A process designed for accountable choice may create false confidence in deeply uncertain judgments."]},"next_evidence_step":"Conduct one preregistered, no-stakes retrospective comparison on a bounded set of archived or synthetic submissions. Have separate groups apply the baseline procedure and the proposed arena; record identity leakage, evaluator agreement, provenance failures, hidden-perturbation performance, portfolio overlap, preparation and evaluation time, stakeholder-harm flags, appeals, and changes caused by audit. Treat the exercise only as a feasibility and mechanism test, not as evidence of operational effect, and require an independent go/no-go review before any live use.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"No comparison was performed because this is proposal_index 1; the candidate was derived only from the supplied archetype, mechanisms, and futurism-and-foresight domain card.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial complete proposal","Concrete scarce-prize problem in strategic foresight","Observable rivalry state and consequences","Full structural and mechanism mappings","Authority-bounded first evidence","Explicit safeguards, counterevidence, and falsifiers"],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version; no parent proposal"],"operational_changes":["Initial version; specifies a no-stakes retrospective simulation before any live selection"],"evidence_changes":["Prior art remains unsearched; evidence step is limited to archived or synthetic internal materials"],"claim_changes":["Makes no claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size"]}}