{"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-utility-premise-challenge-tribunal","proposal_index":4,"version":0,"title":"Utility Planning-Premise Challenge Tribunal","problem":"An electric utility must designate a central twenty-year electricity-demand trajectory for its resource plan. Generation developers, network divisions, large customers, consumer advocates, and consultants have conflicting stakes in whether the official premise implies rapid growth, stagnation, electrification, or load migration. Their rival forecasts can determine which investments appear necessary. In an ordinary hearing, well-funded sponsors can buy more modeling, repeat favorable assumptions across affiliated submissions, conceal funding or data transformations, lobby decision-makers, attack rival credibility, and shift the cost of a favorable but mistaken premise onto customers and host communities.","actors":["Electric utility resource-planning office","Utility governing board","Energy regulator or designated oversight body","Generation and network business units","Generation developers and equipment suppliers","Large-customer representatives","Consumer and low-income ratepayer advocates","Labor and affected-community representatives","Eligible forecasting teams and consultants","Independent technical judges","Model-replication auditors","Independent procedural appeal reviewer"],"observable_state":"For each planning cycle, the utility can observe the number and sponsorship of candidate demand trajectories, common ownership and consultant relationships, advocacy expenditures and contacts, source and transformation lineage, access to shared data, model reproducibility, undisclosed historical-cutoff performance, sensitivity to common perturbations, rebuttal records, judge disagreement, procedural appeals, selected-premise concentration, subsequent signposts, capital decisions attributed to the premise, and costs or burdens assigned to customers and communities.","consequence":"The official demand premise may reflect sponsor resources, institutional influence, selective evidence, or coordinated repetition rather than a comparatively defensible account of uncertainty. Because the selected premise becomes the reference point for investment analysis, its sponsor can indirectly shape the capital agenda, while customers and communities bear risks that were advantageous to exclude from the contest.","affected_objective":"Establish a transparent and revisable central planning premise, together with bounded stress trajectories, whose selection reflects reproducible foresight and explicit consequences rather than advocacy power, sabotage, collusion, or control of the decision process.","intervention":"Before each resource-plan cycle, create a time-limited planning-premise tribunal. The scarce prize is designation of one demand trajectory as the central analytical case; two additional finalist trajectories receive protected stress-case status but do not share the central designation. An independent rulemaking group freezes eligibility, common data, permissible methods, disclosure duties, scoring, rebuttal limits, tie-breaks, appeals, and premise-expiration triggers before submissions. Eligible sponsors submit a time-indexed trajectory with a causal model, uncertainty bounds, historical vintages, signposts, disconfirming conditions, distributional consequences, and machine-reproducible calculations. Sponsors disclose interests to an ethics officer, while the technical panel initially reviews identity-masked models. All entrants receive the same data room and capped compute, consulting, submission, and oral-advocacy allowances. Auditors reproduce the leading models and test them on undisclosed historical cutoffs and common synthetic regime shifts. Finalists enter equal-length paired rebuttal rounds in which they may challenge causal assumptions and evidence but not sponsor identity or motives. Judges score traceability, reproducibility, treatment of uncertainty, causal coherence, historical behavior, perturbation robustness, decision relevance, and explicit stakeholder consequences; raw point accuracy alone cannot determine the winner. A published reasoned decision names the central premise and two stress cases, records dissent, and permits procedural appeal. The designation expires after a fixed interval or reopens when registered signposts cross precommitted thresholds. Winning does not approve a project, rate, or procurement, and no winner may write the next tribunal's rules. Post-cycle review compares observed signposts, planning uses, distributional burdens, gaming, and concentration with the tribunal's stated purpose.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explicit rivalry purpose","domain_realization":"Use contestable comparison to discipline competing long-range demand claims while preventing interested sponsors from converting advocacy power into control of the resource plan."},{"archetype_element":"Scarce prize","domain_realization":"One official central-case designation for the resource-plan analysis, accompanied by two subordinate stress-case positions."},{"archetype_element":"Competitor eligibility boundary","domain_realization":"Sponsors qualify through interest disclosure, reproducibility commitments, source-lineage requirements, conflict controls, and acceptance of common data and advocacy limits."},{"archetype_element":"Contest arena boundary","domain_realization":"Alternative causal models, documented proprietary methods, evidence-based criticism, and bounded rebuttal are permitted; lobbying judges, sponsor attacks, fabricated provenance, affiliated duplicate entries, data obstruction, and undisclosed coordination are prohibited."},{"archetype_element":"Performance metric and scoring basis","domain_realization":"Composite judging covers causal traceability, uncertainty treatment, reproducibility, hidden-cutoff behavior, regime-shift robustness, decision relevance, and stakeholder consequences rather than a single forecast-error measure."},{"archetype_element":"Fair process and due process","domain_realization":"Frozen rules, common inputs, masked technical review, equal rebuttal opportunities, published reasons, recorded dissent, and an independent procedural appeal constrain arbitrary selection."},{"archetype_element":"Anti-sabotage and anti-collusion guardrail","domain_realization":"Funding disclosures, affiliation checks, contact logs, common pattern screens, source audits, and graduated foul procedures address coordinated repetition, evidence suppression, lobbying, and attacks on rivals."},{"archetype_element":"Externality and spillover boundary","domain_realization":"Every candidate must show customer, worker, reliability, land-use, and community consequences, while project approval and statutory protections remain outside the premise contest."},{"archetype_element":"Escalation and arms-race damper","domain_realization":"Common data and fixed allowances for compute, consultants, submissions, and oral advocacy constrain a modeling and influence-spending race."},{"archetype_element":"Winner power and lock-in review","domain_realization":"The central premise expires, can be reopened by signposts, grants no project approval or future rulemaking role, and remains paired with protected stress cases."},{"archetype_element":"Learning and recalibration","domain_realization":"Observed signposts, downstream planning uses, stakeholder burdens, appeals, gaming, and sponsor concentration inform revision or retirement of the next tribunal."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"contest_rulebook","role":"Freezes entry, data, model documentation, scoring, advocacy, rebuttal, tie-break, disclosure, expiration, and appeal rules before judges see candidate premises.","counterfactual_removal":"Sponsors or officials could alter admissibility and scoring around a preferred investment narrative, leaving losing parties without a stable basis for challenge."},{"mechanism_slug":"spending_cap_or_resource_cap","role":"Provides common data and caps compute, paid consulting, submission length, and oral-advocacy time for every eligible premise sponsor.","counterfactual_removal":"The tribunal could become an arms race in modeling volume, expert testimony, and repeated advocacy, causing selection to track sponsor resources."},{"mechanism_slug":"ranked_leaderboard_with_audit","role":"Ranks identity-masked premise candidates under a composite rubric and requires independent reproduction, source verification, and hidden-cutoff testing before finalists are designated.","counterfactual_removal":"A polished but irreproducible or selectively backtested model could lead the standings, while an unaudited score would give strategic submissions an authoritative appearance."},{"mechanism_slug":"bracket_or_tournament_structure","role":"Moves qualified premises through reproducibility screening, common stress tests, and bounded paired-rebuttal rounds before the final comparison, giving every finalist symmetrical opportunities to expose weaknesses.","counterfactual_removal":"An unstructured hearing could reward repetition, endurance, or speaking order and allow the panel to compare different candidates under different questions."},{"mechanism_slug":"multiple_award_or_portfolio_selection","role":"Protects two finalist trajectories as official stress cases while reserving one central designation, preventing the winner from erasing materially different tested assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"The central-case winner could become the only future represented in downstream analysis, turning a bounded premise choice into epistemic monopoly."},{"mechanism_slug":"sabotage_or_foul_penalty_schedule","role":"Precommits graduated consequences for judge lobbying, sponsor attacks, fabricated provenance, affiliated duplicate submissions, data obstruction, and undisclosed coordination.","counterfactual_removal":"Off-arena influence and interference could remain viable ways to improve a premise's chance of designation."},{"mechanism_slug":"anti_collusion_monitoring","role":"Uses uniform affiliation, bid, consultant, source, and submission-pattern screens to identify coordinated repetition or artificial range-setting and refers anomalies for separate inquiry.","counterfactual_removal":"Affiliated sponsors could submit apparently independent trajectories that manufacture consensus or strategically bracket the acceptable range."},{"mechanism_slug":"challenger_access_window","role":"Reopens the central premise at a fixed cadence or when registered signposts cross thresholds, permitting qualified challengers to contest an incumbent assumption before the entire plan is remade.","counterfactual_removal":"A premise selected once could persist through institutional inertia even after its causal assumptions or observed signposts materially change."},{"mechanism_slug":"post_contest_impact_review","role":"Examines how the selected and stress premises were used, which signposts appeared, what burdens followed, and whether sponsors captured later rules or metrics.","counterfactual_removal":"The utility could repeat a tribunal that selected defensible-looking premises but failed to improve decision framing or constrained uncertainty in harmful ways."}],"causal_chain":["A mandatory central demand trajectory creates a scarce designation, while sponsors benefit when that premise makes their preferred investments appear necessary or unnecessary.","Unmanaged hearings let financial resources, affiliated repetition, selective modeling, personal attacks, and private access compete alongside substantive foresight.","A frozen rulebook, common data environment, identity masking, role separation, and equal resource limits remove several off-purpose routes to winning.","Independent reproduction, hidden historical cutoffs, common regime shifts, and symmetrical rebuttal make auditable causal performance easier to compare than advocacy volume.","Composite scoring couples the central designation to explicit uncertainty, decision consequences, and stakeholder burdens rather than to point accuracy or sponsor preference alone.","Protected stress cases preserve bounded plural futures without obscuring which premise occupies the scarce central role.","Foul enforcement and anti-collusion referrals constrain sabotage, manufactured consensus, and coordinated range-setting without treating statistical patterns as verdicts.","Expiration, signpost-triggered challenge, excluded project authority, and post-cycle review prevent one premise victory from permanently controlling the planning arena.","If the designation no longer structures a consequential decision or the tribunal cannot keep winning coupled to reproducible foresight, the process is revised or retired."],"baseline":"The resource-planning office develops or commissions a central demand forecast and receives alternative filings through a conventional stakeholder hearing. Sponsors submit different models, data transformations, expert testimony, and presentation volumes; identities and preferred investments are visible throughout. Officials reconcile the record through deliberation, historical testing is not necessarily common across models, stress cases may be chosen after the central forecast, advocacy resources are uncapped, and the selected premise can persist until the next full plan without a precommitted signpost challenge.","nearest_rivals":["An independent staff forecast removes direct sponsor competition from model construction but concentrates premise authority in one office and provides no governed route for rival causal claims to contest it.","A conventional regulatory hearing permits broad participation and cross-examination but may not equalize modeling resources, mask technical review, audit every finalist under common tests, or limit off-record influence.","A Delphi exercise can aggregate expert judgments anonymously but seeks convergence among panelists rather than governing interested sponsors competing for a consequential official premise.","An ensemble forecast combines models mathematically, reducing reliance on one trajectory, but can conceal incompatible causal assumptions and does not govern advocacy, entry, fouls, stakeholder spillovers, or future rule capture.","Robust decision analysis can seek plans that perform across many futures and may eliminate the need for a central premise; where governance still requires a designated central case, it does not by itself govern the rivalry over that designation.","A prediction market can aggregate beliefs about specified future quantities but ties influence to trading behavior and does not supply model reproducibility, stakeholder-impact review, procedural appeal, or protection against premise-based project advocacy."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal governs rivalry among materially interested sponsors over an official long-range planning premise by combining equalized technical advocacy, adversarial model testing, a scarce central designation, protected stress cases, and automatic contestability. It is not merely public consultation, forecast aggregation, model validation, or robust planning; its defining object is the arena through which a sponsored future premise gains and loses institutional authority.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The utility governing board, subject to applicable regulatory oversight, alone designates the planning premise and authorizes resource plans, projects, rates, or procurements. Technical judges may score models but cannot approve investments, waive legal duties, determine misconduct, exclude lawful public comment, or treat the selected premise as an automatic operating instruction.","authorized_first_step":"Conduct a no-stakes retrospective tribunal using archived or synthetic demand-premise filings. Mask sponsors, impose common resource limits, reproduce models where feasible, apply a draft stress suite and paired rebuttal on paper, and compare evaluator decisions with the archived process without changing any current forecast, project, rate, contract, or regulatory filing.","excluded_actions":["Changing live demand assumptions, rates, investments, procurements, or reliability obligations during the test","Making statutory rights, safety standards, affordability protections, or environmental duties contestable","Restricting lawful public participation to tribunal entrants","Using pilot scores for employment, contracting, discipline, or public accusations","Treating affiliation or pattern screens as proof of collusion","Requiring disclosure of proprietary information beyond authorized reproducibility and audit needs","Allowing a premise winner to approve projects or write the next cycle's rules","Suppressing dissenting technical findings or stakeholder-impact statements","Using sponsor identity, political alignment, or preferred technology as a technical scoring factor"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if masking materially fails, confidential data are exposed, evaluator conflicts cannot be cured, common tests privilege a known sponsor after results are visible, a statutory obligation is treated as contestable, or resource limits prevent a party from presenting a legally required case. Void pilot rankings, retain the existing planning premise, restore ordinary participation procedures, quarantine protected materials, document affected parties, and require governing-board and oversight approval before another test."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would show that the existing premise process already uses common reproducible data, stable preannounced criteria, independent replication, equal participation resources, effective conflict and contact controls, protected alternative trajectories, reasoned appeals, signpost-triggered reopening, and separation between premise selection and project approval, leaving no consequential unmanaged rivalry for the tribunal to repair.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if no scarce central premise is required, resource decisions are demonstrably invariant across the disputed trajectories, sponsors lack strategic stakes in selection, their actions cannot affect rivals' outcomes, and independent review finds no consequential association between advocacy resources, affiliation, private access, selective evidence, or prior influence and premise designation.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if masking cannot survive distinctive models, equal resource limits entrench actors with preexisting assets, judges cannot apply the composite rubric consistently, hidden tests reward historical fit while excluding credible structural change, paired rebuttal becomes performative attack, stress cases are ignored downstream, or the tribunal legitimizes a central premise where robust planning should avoid one.","risks":["A central-case competition may create false precision around a deeply uncertain demand future.","Resource caps may advantage incumbents that already possess models, data, and retained expertise.","Identity masking may fail because methods, assumptions, or writing reveal sponsors.","Hidden historical tests may favor backward-looking models and penalize legitimate discontinuity claims.","Paired rebuttal may intensify polarization or reward skilled adversarial presentation.","Composite scoring may hide value judgments inside technical weights.","Protected stress cases may become ceremonial if planners optimize only against the central premise.","Affiliated parties may coordinate submissions, consultants, sources, or apparent disagreement.","Stakeholder-consequence scoring may be manipulated to favor a preferred investment position.","Premise expiration may create planning instability or strategic timing around signpost thresholds.","Procedural complexity may burden less-resourced public-interest participants despite formal equality.","Judges or rulemakers may have indirect professional ties to sponsors or technologies.","The process may be inappropriate if a central premise is unnecessary and decisions can instead remain robust across a wider uncertainty set." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Run one preregistered retrospective paper tribunal on a bounded set of archived or synthetic demand trajectories. Record model-reproduction success, identity leakage, resource-limit compliance, evaluator agreement, score sensitivity to rubric weights, hidden-test behavior, changes caused by rebuttal and audit, treatment of stakeholder consequences, procedural appeals, and whether protected stress cases materially alter a simulated decision analysis. Treat the exercise only as a feasibility and failure-mode test, not as evidence that the tribunal improves planning outcomes.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 governed competition among foresight teams for three preparedness-rehearsal slots, using masked scenario packages and portfolio selection to address pitch gaming and redundant exercises. Proposal 4 instead governs interested parties competing to make one quantitative demand premise institutionally authoritative in a utility resource plan; its intervention is an adversarial tribunal with common technical resources, paired rebuttal, a central designation, protected stress cases, and premise expiration. Proposal 2 addressed incumbent vendor control of forecasting data and interfaces through a fund-owned infrastructure layer, simultaneous production and shadow contracts, and recurring provider displacement. Proposal 4 does not procure a forecasting service or solve technical switching lock-in; it governs substantive premise advocacy among stakeholders whose preferred capital decisions depend on the result. Proposal 3 addressed continuous weak-signal queue flooding through equal escalation warrants, confidential priority registration, and bounded verification capacity. Proposal 4 concerns mature, competing causal trajectories in a periodic public planning record, not early-signal nomination or verification attention. Its causal path runs from investment-linked premise advocacy through equalized adversarial testing to a revisable official assumption, making it independently adoptable without any rehearsal league, provider challenge system, or signal-warrant process.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Fourth independently adoptable proposal","Materially different problem from proposals 1, 2, and 3","Distinct intervention and causal path","Complete actors, observable state, authority, safeguards, mechanisms, rivals, falsifiers, and bounded evidence","Explicit diversity comparison with every earlier sealed proposal"],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version focuses on rivalry over an authoritative long-range planning premise rather than rehearsal selection, forecasting-service lock-in, or weak-signal escalation"],"operational_changes":["Introduces a time-limited premise tribunal, common technical resources, identity-masked replication, paired rebuttal, one central designation, two protected stress cases, and signpost-triggered reopening"],"evidence_changes":["Prior art remains unsearched; first evidence is limited to a retrospective or synthetic paper tribunal"],"claim_changes":["Makes no claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size"]}}