{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology:P2:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology","search_queries":["adversarial collaboration research center protocol adversarial collaboration Templeton official","site:publicationethics.org peer review guidelines editors conflicts appeals corrections","peer review prestige bias author status randomized study journal","religious studies journal symposium competing interpretations editorial guidelines","Templeton World Charity Foundation adversarial collaboration official protocol","Adversarial Collaboration Research Center guidebook official","adversarial collaboration scholarly disputes study protocol paper","Society of Biblical Literature peer review journal editorial policy interpretation symposium","American Academy of Religion professional conduct handbook research communities official","American Academy Religion responsible research ethics communities official guidelines","COPE core practices peer review conflicts complaints appeals corrections official","BLS employer costs employee compensation March 2026 official","\"Thus We Are Agreed\" adversarial collaborations full text","10.3390/publications14030047 adversarial collaborations","adversarial collaborations systematic mapping review formal aspects 2026 PDF","PNAS Nobel and novice author prominence affects peer review Huber 2022 DOI"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review","publisher":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9564227/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2022-10-04","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A preregistered field experiment varying the displayed author identity found substantially different review recommendations for the same paper.","The result supports the general plausibility of prestige affecting scholarly evaluation, although it was conducted in finance rather than religious studies."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Thus We Are Agreed! A Systematic Mapping Review of Adversarial Collaborations in Science","publisher":"Publications (MDPI)","url":"https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/14/3/47","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2026-07-24","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A systematic mapping review identified 89 adversarial-collaboration publications and synthesized implementation steps, benefits, challenges, and best practices.","Existing practice includes jointly documented designs, mutually exclusive hypotheses, mediators, preregistration, shared materials, and joint publication.","The review found implementation-reporting weaknesses and no journal specifically promoting adversarial collaborations, leaving diffusion and quality gaps."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Theoretical adversarial collaboration: a template","publisher":"arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16374","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2026-07-17","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A five-step procedure already addresses nonexperimental theoretical disputes through clarified contentions, agreed perspective-shifting evidence, supervised steelmanning, iterative objections and responses, and explicit progress conditions.","The template was implemented in philosophy/foundations projects and is proposed for other theoretical domains.","This is very close prior art for the candidate's frozen claim, steelman, direct challenge, mediator, and falsifier elements."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Accelerating Research on Consciousness","publisher":"Templeton World Charity Foundation","url":"https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/our-priorities/discovery/accelerating-research-consciousness","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An identifiable funder operates a grant-development mechanism using adversarial collaboration and open-science practices.","The funder expressly describes siloed theories and divergent conclusions from common data as problems and supports projects testing contradictory theories.","This demonstrates adjacent funder pull, not willingness to fund a religious-text tournament."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Our core practices","publisher":"Committee on Publication Ethics","url":"https://publicationethics.org/files/editable-bean/COPE_Core_Practices_0.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Recognized publishing guidance calls for transparently described peer review, conflict-management processes, complaints and appeals, and post-publication correction mechanisms.","Several candidate safeguards are established editorial-governance practices rather than novel mechanisms."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Responsible Research Practices","publisher":"American Academy of Religion","url":"https://aarweb.org/news/responsible-research-practices/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2016-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The field's learned society calls for evidence accountability, methodological pluralism, critical and constructive debate, transparent methods, and consideration of multiple viewpoints.","It recommends double-blind review as standard and requires honest and fair treatment where scholarship affects contemporary religious groups.","It locates human-subject oversight with institutional review bodies and states that AAR itself does not adjudicate misconduct."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary—March 2026","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm?page=1","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-06-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["March 2026 employer compensation averaged $49.32 per hour for civilian workers, with wide percentile variation.","These labor-cost benchmarks support only broad resource-equivalent bands; specialist scholarly, legal, translation, and archival labor may cost more."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"An adversarial collaboration protocol for testing contrasting predictions of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theory","publisher":"PLOS ONE","url":"https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0268577&type=printable","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2023-02-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A funded, multi-laboratory adversarial collaboration preregistered competing predictions and expected outcomes, separated data-quality monitoring, locked analyses before confirmatory testing, and shared data and code.","The protocol demonstrates technical feasibility for frozen predictions, sequestered confirmation material, independent monitoring, and cross-team governance.","Its scale and domain differ sharply from a humanities journal tournament, so it does not establish effectiveness or cost in religious studies."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Randomized evidence shows that displayed author prominence can materially alter peer-review recommendations, and AAR guidance treats double-blinding, evidential accountability, methodological pluralism, and multiple viewpoints as important safeguards. This supports the general failure mechanism. No direct source establishes the prevalence or consequences of claim drift, asymmetric evidence, reciprocal weak challenges, quotation failures, or citation lock-in in religious-studies symposia; the candidate's domain-specific problem magnitude therefore remains unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S6"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Templeton World Charity Foundation is an identifiable funder already using adversarial collaboration to address siloed competing theories, while AAR articulates compatible needs for rigorous debate and responsible representation. However, no religious-studies journal, editorial board, archive, or research center was found expressing demand for a ranked tournament, verification grant, or provisional reference designation. Evidence shows adjacent funder pull and professional compatibility, not a committed adopter.","source_ids":["S4","S6"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Theoretical adversarial collaboration template","similarity":"Very close on bounded theoretical disagreement, jointly clarified contentions, agreed evidence, supervised steelmanning, iterative objections, mediation, and explicit conditions for intellectual progress.","remaining_difference":"It is cooperative and generally bilateral; it does not use a multi-team double-elimination bracket, scored leaderboard, scarce verification grant, sequestered textual packet, expiring winner designation, or living-community harm review.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Established adversarial-collaboration practice and best-practice synthesis","similarity":"Existing literature already covers opposing teams, documented joint designs, mutually exclusive hypotheses, mediation, preregistration, shared materials, and publication regardless of outcome.","remaining_difference":"Most reviewed practice is empirical and collaborative rather than a ranked humanities tournament; the review also reports uneven implementation documentation and limited journal institutionalization.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"Templeton Accelerating Research on Consciousness program","similarity":"An operational funder program uses grants, open science, and adversarial collaboration to test competing theories and reduce siloing.","remaining_difference":"It concerns empirical consciousness science, not contested textual interpretation, and does not establish the proposed bracket, winner designation, or community-representation safeguards.","source_ids":["S4","S8"]},{"name":"Standard ethical editorial governance","similarity":"Transparent review rules, conflict controls, appeals, corrections, double-blinding, evidence accountability, and fair treatment of represented religious communities are already recognized practices.","remaining_difference":"These standards do not directly compare rival interpretations under equal resource budgets or award a time-limited verification grant.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Relative to ordinary double-blind review, unranked synthesis, and bilateral theoretical adversarial collaboration, a voluntary multi-team double-elimination process combining equal research budgets, a sequestered comparison packet, criterion-level source audits, publication of multiple surviving accounts, and an expiring single verification-grant designation will produce more reproducible decisive-source verification, greater claim stability, and clearer discriminating evidence without increasing pairing-order sensitivity, judge sensitivity, context loss, representational harm, or citation lock-in.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The constituent workflow—precommitted predictions, mediation, steelmanning, independent monitoring, held-back confirmation material, transparent rules, conflicts, appeals, and corrections—is technically and institutionally feasible because close analogues have been implemented or standardized. A journal board could authorize a voluntary pilot within its publication and grant powers. Major unresolved issues are the validity of scoring interpretive quality, access and copyright for common dossiers, culturally restricted materials, specialist-language comparability, judge and pairing effects, participant consent, and potential harm or false authority affecting living communities. Neither the tournament as a package nor its effects in religious studies have been tested.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"If the documented process failures are prevalent and consequential, the intervention could improve the reliability and revisability of influential interpretations. Domain prevalence and realized consequences are presently unknown.","source_ids":["S1","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"An adjacent funder actively supports adversarial collaboration and AAR norms align with several safeguards, but there is no named journal or center seeking this exact process.","source_ids":["S4","S6"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"The bracket, resource caps, sequestered packet, expiring designation, and community-harm layer add structure, but there is no comparative evidence that they outperform bilateral adversarial collaboration, double-blind review, or unranked synthesis.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Theoretical adversarial collaboration already substantially collides with the causal core. The remaining package is contrastively describable but its value and novelty-like distinctiveness are untested.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Most components are procedural and have operational analogues; no novel technology is required. Reliable scoring, source verification across languages, and sequestered-packet construction remain difficult.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A journal board or authorized research center could run a voluntary pilot, but AAR does not adjudicate misconduct and no specific journal has granted access, authority, or participation commitments.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"General mechanisms and close prior art are documented, but the candidate lacks domain-specific prevalence data, archive access, comparative outcomes, reliable coding results, and a live mock test.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Appeals, corrections, expiration, plural publication, and explicit community-harm checks could limit overclaiming and lock-in, but competitive ranking may itself intensify representational harm or perceived theological adjudication.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Source, translation, conflict, judging, and harm audits are labor-intensive, and the method applies only to narrow evidence-responsive disputes. Existing large collaborations demonstrate coordination feasibility but not economical journal-scale repetition.","source_ids":["S2","S7","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One preregistered retrospective audit of at most 12 lawfully accessible exchanges, including archive preparation, two independent coders, adjudication, limited methods supervision, and an aggregate report; excludes participant contact and truth ranking.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 250–500 total staff and specialist hours.","The partner supplies digitized, legally usable records without major licensing or transcription fees.","Loaded labor is budgeted above broad civilian averages where specialist expertise is required."],"source_ids":["S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and nonpublic validation of the rulebook, eligibility and conflict procedures, coding and scoring rubrics, sample dossier, sequestered packet, data-security workflow, appeal process, ethics/legal review, and one mock replay.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Uses existing journal infrastructure rather than custom software.","Includes paid philological, methodological, community-impact, copyright, and legal consultation.","Does not include a public prize or full prospective tournament."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"One public pilot cycle with roughly four to eight teams, compensated judges and evidence auditors, translation/provenance checks, editorial production, correction and appeal capacity, participant support, and one meaningful verification grant.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One bounded proposition and primarily accessible sources.","The verification grant is approximately $75,000–$250,000.","No major archival acquisition, litigation, bespoke platform, or international fieldwork is required."],"source_ids":["S4","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"One contest cycle per year plus challenger intake, designation-expiration review, corrections, archive maintenance, post-contest impact review, and governance administration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One bounded contest annually.","Startup methods and infrastructure are reusable.","Costs rise above this band if multiple languages, restricted archives, several contests, or extensive community consultation are required."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"A randomized field experiment supports prestige bias in peer review, while domain guidance recognizes the need for double-blinding, evidence accountability, methodological pluralism, and fair representation. Candidate-specific prevalence remains a blocking empirical gap but the underlying problem mechanism is externally supported.","source_ids":["S1","S6"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Templeton World Charity Foundation is a credible adjacent funder of adversarial collaboration, and journal boards possess relevant editorial authority, but no religious-studies journal or center has expressed willingness to authorize this tournament or provide archive access.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim specifies an intervention package, three comparators, measurable process outcomes, and adverse outcomes that would disfavor it.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A preregistered, de-identified audit of at most 12 completed exchanges from one authorized archive can estimate prevalence and coding reliability without changing publication decisions or adjudicating religious truth.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The retrospective design can be low risk if access, de-identification, copyright, cultural permissions, and institutional review are secured. No named archive authorization or ethics determination exists, and the prospective winner designation presents unresolved representational and authority risks.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"All four bands have bounded scopes and explicit assumptions anchored to March 2026 employer-cost data, although specialist pricing and verification-grant size require partner quotes before budgeting.","source_ids":["S7"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Secure written authorization from one journal or research center and preregister a de-identified process-prevalence study of no more than 12 completed, lawfully accessible exchanges: include ordinary parallel symposium or double-blind-review cases and, where available, unranked or structured-dialogue comparators addressing similarly bounded questions. Before outcomes are revealed, two independent coders record claim stability, evidence symmetry, quotation and translation reproducibility, accuracy of rival representation, response strength, conflicts, decision reasons, corrections, and later reference treatment; require inter-rater kappa of at least 0.70 for core codes or stop and revise the instrument. Proceed to consideration of a mock tournament only if at least three exchanges show independently reproducible process failures plausibly connected to evaluation or later reference status and those failures are not already addressed by the comparator processes. Falsify the stated problem in this setting if propositions are not genuinely comparable or no meaningful process failures are found; disfavor the intervention if a subsequent nonpublic mock replay is materially sensitive to judge identity or pairing order, suppresses necessary context, worsens community-representation ratings, or produces no clearer discriminating evidence than unranked synthesis.","blocking_evidence":["Domain-specific prevalence and consequence estimates from completed religious-studies or theology exchanges.","Written authorization and lawful archive access from a named journal or research center.","A reliable coding manual that separates process defects from substantive truth judgments.","Comparative evidence against ordinary double-blind review, unranked synthesis, and bilateral theoretical adversarial collaboration.","A nonpublic mock replay measuring judge effects, pairing-order effects, context loss, source reproducibility, and community-representation harms.","Project-specific specialist labor quotes, copyright and translation costs, and an authorized verification-grant budget.","Ethics, privacy, cultural-permission, and governance determinations for the selected corpus and any represented living communities."],"research_disposition":"PROBLEM_PREVALENCE_STUDY","world_novelty_boundary":"This eight-source bounded search establishes substantial collision with adversarial-collaboration practice and a 2026 theoretical template but does not measure world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact. The exact combination of a religious-interpretation double-elimination tournament, sequestered packet, resource caps, plural publication, expiring designation, and community-harm review was not located, but absence from this search is not evidence of global novelty.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain written participation and archive-access authority from one named religious-studies journal or research center.","Complete the preregistered 12-exchange prevalence study with core-code inter-rater kappa of at least 0.70.","Show that independently reproducible process failures occur in at least three sampled exchanges and are not already controlled by ordinary review or synthesis.","Run a nonpublic comparator mock replay and demonstrate lower source-verification failure and claim drift without material judge, pairing-order, context-loss, citation-lock-in, or community-harm penalties.","Obtain ethics, copyright, cultural-permission, and data-governance clearance for any prospective pilot.","Replace broad cost assumptions with partner-approved staffing, specialist, translation, audit, and grant budgets."],"reason":"Bounded web research established a real general bias mechanism, adjacent funder pull, implementable components, and substantial prior-art collision. The decisive remaining questions—domain prevalence, archive authorization, coding reliability, comparative performance, workflow effects, and representational safety—require proprietary records, partner decisions, or live testing and therefore cannot be resolved by further web search."},"proposal_index":2}