{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__nanotechnology:P3:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__nanotechnology","proposal_index":3,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The falsifiable incremental claim is that input caps, complete-attempt accounting, lifecycle scoring, milestone independence, hidden endurance segments, and reopening improve prediction of demonstration performance beyond publication/peak-result selection and standardized endurance testing alone."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent research and official guidance substantiate consequential catalyst-comparison, reproducibility, preparation-sensitivity, and durability problems, while appropriately leaving sponsor-specific prevalence unresolved."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A research sponsor such as DOE can authorize the study and eventual prize design; an independent catalyst-validation laboratory and the institutions owning archived project records are concrete access-granting partner classes."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The decisive evidence requires proprietary raw time series, complete preparation and failure histories, resource and waste accounts, historical decisions, and later outcomes that ordinary public research cannot supply."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sponsor can authorize a non-awarding, data-only shadow evaluation under data-owner, confidentiality, privacy, and conflict approvals, with no new synthesis, material transfer, reaction testing, funding change, misconduct finding, or override of safety controls."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The preregistered study fixes 5–15 archived projects, coded analysis, held-back archived segments, three explicit comparators, sensitivity tests, an 80% reconstructability threshold, and progression falsifiers addressing predictive advantage, rank stability, measurement uncertainty, incumbent effects, and governance burden."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES. Cost scope is uncertain rather than negative, and the bounded shadow study has a defined planning band; no unresolved safety or authority stop applies to that first step."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is a specific partnered shadow challenge with named access needs, frozen comparators, quantitative thresholds, and a go/no-go decision about prospective protocol and governance review."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A sponsor or award authority with 5–15 comparable archived nanocatalyst projects, joined by institutional data owners and an independent catalyst-validation laboratory able to interpret historical protocols and later demonstration outcomes; DOE and its laboratory ecosystem are a credible example, although no commitment is established.","required_access":"Authorized, confidentiality-protected access to coded raw time series, preparation and attempted-batch histories, materials inventories, reactor and compute records, waste records, historical selection decisions, audit-relevant documentation, and any later demonstration outcomes, plus technical interpretation from the sponsor and validation laboratory.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister a non-awarding retrospective shadow study of 5–15 archived projects. Freeze the reaction definition, eligibility, missing-data rules, resource categories, safety exclusions, score weights, milestone-independence rule, audit triggers, uncertainty analysis, and three comparators: historical publication/peak selection, standardized endurance-only ranking, and the full capped/failure-accounted/lifecycle-weighted design. Rank coded projects using held-back archived segments and measure reconstructability, rank uncertainty and sensitivity, audit reversals, incumbent effects, predictive validity, appeal effort, and governance cost.","success_condition":"At least 80% of projects have comparable reconstructable attempt and resource histories; measurement and segment uncertainty permit meaningful discrimination; rankings remain directionally stable across preregistered reasonable conditions; and the full design predicts later demonstration performance better than both historical selection and endurance-only ranking without unacceptable incumbent bias, participation exclusion, safety burden, or governance cost.","falsification_condition":"Do not progress if fewer than 80% of projects are reconstructable, measurement or segment uncertainty exceeds between-project differences, rankings reverse across reasonable preregistered weights, the full design predicts later performance no better than endurance-only ranking, or its exclusionary effects and governance costs are disproportionate.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: extensive adjacent practice supports feasibility but does not establish the package's incremental benefit. The decisive uncertainty is resolvable only through authorized proprietary records and a bounded comparator study, not further web research. The first step is safe and non-awarding, and it can directly falsify progression before any live prize or nanomaterial activity."}