{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology:P3:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology","search_queries":["community research fatigue multiple research projects cumulative burden Indigenous communities fieldwork access study","official community research review board Indigenous research approval capacity multiple projects guidelines","TCPS 2 Chapter 9 research involving First Nations Inuit Métis community engagement official","AIATSIS Code Ethics Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Research community control benefit burden official","site:ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2022_chapter9 community capacity research fatigue","tribal research review code multiple research projects community burden official research review board","Nunavut research license community consultation multiple researchers research fatigue official","San Code of Research Ethics official community research council","\"Insights into Community Experiences with Research License Review Across Nunavut\"","\"research fatigue\" Indigenous communities multiple research projects peer reviewed","Nunavut research trends 2004 2018 research fatigue review burden paper","community governed research access proposal review capacity Indigenous research prior art","National Inuit Strategy on Research 2018 official governance research priorities Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami PDF","official tribal research code research approval data ownership participant consent research moratorium","Havasupai tribe research moratorium community research approval official","45 CFR 46 IRB informed consent community research official 2026","Polidoro Ljubicic Nunavut research trends 2004 2019 research fatigue paper","site:cambridge.org Nunavut research trends 2004 2019 Polidoro","\"Assessing research trends in Nunavut\" 2004 2018"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"What is happening where? An evaluation of social sciences research trends in Nunavut (2004–2019)","publisher":"FACETS / Canadian Science Publishing","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S2371167124000632","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2024-02-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Analysis of Nunavut licensing records found social-science research increased over 2004–2019.","Projects were concentrated geographically, predominantly led by Canadian academics, and commonly used interviews.","Licensing data can reveal research intensity but did not directly measure participant fatigue, cumulative burden, access rivalry, or misconduct."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Insights into Community Experiences with Research License Review Across Nunavut","publisher":"ARCTIC / Arctic Institute of North America","url":"https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/download/83527/58869/277848","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Surveyed community review organizations received up to 64 applications annually; 40% received one to ten.","Only 35% reported reviewer compensation and only 10% provided feedback on every reviewed application.","Reviewers expressed need for more support and resources, researcher engagement, and access to outcomes.","The existing process lets community organizations recommend approval, rejection, or conditions, providing a close operational analogue."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022)","publisher":"Government of Canada, Panel on Research Ethics","url":"https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2022.html?wbdisable=false","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2022","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The current Canadian human-research policy contains separate requirements for consent, privacy, conflicts, ethics-board governance and appeals.","Chapter 9 specifically addresses research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.","Community engagement complements rather than replaces individual consent and institutional ethics review."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research","publisher":"Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies","url":"https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-02/aiatsis-code-ethics-jan22.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2022-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The code establishes Indigenous self-determination, leadership, impact and value, sustainability and accountability as governing principles.","It recognizes community or group free, prior and informed consent in addition to individual consent where necessary.","It calls for Indigenous governance, written agreements, benefit and reciprocity, impact monitoring, cultural competence and post-project accountability.","It applies to collections and archival or data research as well as direct human-participant research."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"National Inuit Strategy on Research","publisher":"Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami","url":"https://itk.ca/projects/national-inuit-strategy-on-research/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2018","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An identifiable Inuit representative organization states that research has too often marginalized Inuit participation and primarily benefited researchers and institutions.","The strategy expressly seeks Inuit research governance, ethical conduct, alignment with Inuit priorities, data control and local capacity.","Its implementation agenda calls for coordinated and transparent approaches, accountability, governance bodies and transparent review and oversight."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Research Licensing in Nunavut","publisher":"Nunavut Research Institute","url":"https://www.nri.nu.ca/research-licencing-nunavut","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The Nunavut Research Institute is an identifiable licensing authority under the Scientists Act.","Research involving Nunavut's people, land, water or environment requires applicable licenses and authorizations before fieldwork.","Prior community consultation is a required application component, and researchers must respect community norms and expectations.","Multiple licenses and sub-authorizations may be necessary, showing that a community process cannot replace other legal or regulatory authority."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Indigenous research ethics and Tribal Research Review Boards in the United States: examining online presence and themes across online documentation","publisher":"Research Ethics / SAGE Publications","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161241240030","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2024","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Tribal Research Review Boards are established, diverse community-governed processes operating in addition to institutional IRBs.","Reviewed documentation commonly addresses risk, data management, community benefit, consent, dissemination, governance, fees, enforcement and post-approval oversight.","The study found 118 relevant documents but emphasized incomplete online coverage and substantial variation among Tribal communities.","Community research review is therefore established practice, while a comparative capacity-capped portfolio contest was not documented by this study."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"45 CFR Part 46—Protection of Human Subjects","publisher":"U.S. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-07-30","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Covered studies require project-level IRB review addressing minimized and reasonable risks, equitable subject selection and consent.","Legally effective informed consent must minimize coercion or undue influence and participation must be voluntary.","The regulation preserves additional protections supplied by applicable Tribal law.","The Common Rule governs covered projects and subjects; it does not itself specify comparative allocation of scarce community-wide research capacity across independent projects."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The problem class is visible: Nunavut research increased, is concentrated, relies heavily on interviews, and imposes a measurable application-review workload on community organizations (S1, S2). Inuit leadership explicitly reports marginalization and inadequate benefit from prevailing research arrangements (S5). However, the searched evidence does not directly establish the proposal's stronger mechanisms—participant poaching, concealed overlap, disparagement, exclusive gatekeepers, collusion, or an access race selecting the fastest or best-connected team. Nor does it quantify cumulative participant burden against a community-defined capacity ceiling in a religious community. The existence and importance of workload and governance problems are supported; the precise rivalry diagnosis remains unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Identifiable authorizers and adopters exist. The Nunavut Research Institute operates a licensing process requiring community consultation (S6), surveyed community review organizations can recommend approval, rejection or conditions and explicitly requested more resources and better process support (S2), and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami calls for coordinated, transparent, Inuit-governed research oversight (S5). TCPS 2 and AIATSIS supply official institutional and community-governance expectations (S3, S4). This demonstrates strong pull for improved governance, but not expressed demand for a scored competitive portfolio or evidence that the same model transfers to non-Indigenous religious communities.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Nunavut scientific research licensing and community research-license review","similarity":"Requires applications, advance community consultation, regulatory approval and community-organizational review; reviewers can recommend rejection or conditions.","remaining_difference":"The public evidence does not describe a fixed community capacity budget, simultaneous comparative scoring, cumulative participant-contact ledger, portfolio optimization, challenger windows or rivalry-specific foul rules.","source_ids":["S2","S6"]},{"name":"Tribal Research Review Boards","similarity":"Community-governed review already addresses collective risk, data stewardship, consent, benefits, dissemination, enforcement and post-approval oversight beyond institutional IRBs.","remaining_difference":"The reviewed documentation establishes project governance but does not document competitive allocation of scarce access among qualified projects using portfolio complementarity and cumulative burden ceilings.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"TCPS 2 Chapter 9 and AIATSIS Indigenous research ethics","similarity":"Established standards recognize community engagement, self-determination, community-level authorization, research agreements, reciprocity, impact monitoring and individual consent.","remaining_difference":"They set ethical floors and governance duties rather than a contest mechanism for allocating oversubscribed access.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},{"name":"National Inuit Strategy on Research","similarity":"Calls for coordinated, transparent, accountable and Inuit-governed research processes aligned with community priorities.","remaining_difference":"It expresses governance objectives but does not prescribe comparative scoring, portfolio selection, caps or sanctions for rivalry among research teams.","source_ids":["S5"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Conditional on a community freely choosing to facilitate research and documenting genuine oversubscription, a community-majority process that jointly caps cumulative access and selects a complementary portfolio will, relative to separate project review, first-arrival discretion and an ethics-qualified lottery, reduce realized participant-contact, liaison and translation burden and redundant topic overlap while improving community-rated portfolio usefulness—without reducing consent comprehension, displacing individual refusal, or lowering selection rates for otherwise qualified under-resourced teams. This is falsified if scarcity or strategic interdependence is absent, if collaborative planning performs as well with less administrative burden, or if the contest increases pressure, inequity, consent confusion or extraction.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The intervention is administratively buildable because licensing authorities, community review bodies, written agreements, risk/data/benefit review, conditions, appeals and post-approval controls already operate (S2–S7). A ledger, standardized form and capped portfolio need no speculative technology. Authority is nevertheless jurisdiction-specific: the community body can govern shared facilities, services and community-held materials but cannot override individual consent, institutional ethics review, licensing law or distinct custodians (S3, S4, S6, S8). Major unresolved workflow and safety issues include representative legitimacy, confidentiality of relationships and restricted knowledge, reviewer workload, wealthy-institution advantage, informal off-process recruitment and the inability of later review to reverse privacy or trust harms. No source demonstrates that comparative contest scoring is safe or superior in practice.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If oversubscription and cumulative burden are verified, reducing repeated demands and preventing temporary access from becoming durable control could materially protect participants, community capacity and scholarship. Realized impact is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Named Inuit governance and licensing bodies seek stronger, better-resourced, coordinated and transparent research oversight, although none requests this exact contest design.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Capacity budgeting and portfolio-level burden accounting could add value beyond project-by-project review, but superiority over collaborative planning, a moratorium or a qualified lottery has not been tested.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S7","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The contrastive combination of a capacity ceiling, comparative portfolio selection and rivalry controls was not found in the opened sources, but most component practices are established and bounded search cannot establish world novelty.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Forms, ledgers, conflict registers, capped scheduling and review workflows are technically routine; the difficult parts are governance, sensitive-data handling and calibration rather than software.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Licensing and Tribal/community review precedents show credible authority over research permissions and shared resources, but authority and representation vary and cannot extend to individual participation or all institution-held data.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Licensing records and closed project files could support a bounded audit, but the necessary burden, overlap, relationship and incident data are incomplete, sensitive or nonpublic; no intervention outcomes exist.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The design expressly preserves refusal, individual consent and a moratorium as noncontestable alternatives, consistent with official ethics requirements. Safety depends on these floors remaining independent of scoring.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"The workflow can be replicated, but community-specific authority, culture, representation, capacity definitions and confidentiality make standardized scaling risky and labor intensive.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One community-authorized, de-identified audit of no more than 12 closed project files, including protocol registration, records-custodian preparation, two independent reviewers, reconciliation and a community-controlled go/no-go report.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["80–180 total reviewer and coordinator hours","Existing records can be lawfully accessed and de-identified without new participant contact","Includes honoraria and limited privacy or ethics advice","Excludes digitizing a large paper archive, litigation and participant recruitment"],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"If the audit passes, co-design a paper simulation and governance package: authority map, capacity definitions, application template, burden ledger, scoring rubric, conflict and appeal rules, privacy assessment and sponsor-remediation terms.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One bounded community setting","Six to twelve months of part-time community liaison, facilitation, legal/privacy and methodological work","Compensated community-majority design participation","No live access awards during this phase"],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S7"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"First live annual cycle in one setting, including a community liaison or coordinator, compensated panel and independent reviewers, secure records workflow, translation, applicant support, appeals, monitoring and post-project review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 0.75–2.0 staff-equivalents plus panel and specialist time","Accessible application support is funded to reduce wealthy-institution advantage","The band excludes researchers' project budgets and any large remediation payout or bond principal","Institutional sponsors retain their own ethics, insurance and legal obligations"],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Steady-state operation for one bounded setting after startup: liaison administration, reviewer compensation, secure ledger maintenance, applicant assistance, monitoring, appeals and annual impact review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One application cycle per year with a modest applicant pool","Existing secure institutional infrastructure can be reused","Major investigations, litigation, new software development and remediation payments are excluded","Reviewer compensation and community reporting remain funded"],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S7"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Research intensity, concentration and community review workload are externally documented, and Inuit leadership identifies governance and benefit failures. Exact rivalry misconduct and cumulative participant burden remain evidence gaps rather than established facts.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The Nunavut Research Institute and community research-license reviewers are identifiable authorizers, while Tribal Research Review Boards demonstrate a broader adopter class. Their expressed need concerns improved governance and resources, not endorsement of this exact intervention.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be compared against project-level review, first-arrival discretion, collaborative planning, moratorium and qualified lottery using burden, overlap, usefulness, consent and equity outcomes.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S7","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A preregistered audit of at most 12 closed files, with two reviewers, no participant contact and a go/no-go output, is bounded and includes explicit alternative explanations and falsifiers.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The proposed limits are ethically coherent, but no actual community body or records custodian has authorized the audit. Representative legitimacy, privacy, consent compatibility and authority over shared materials must be resolved locally before records are opened.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The four bands have explicit scope and staffing assumptions, and reviewer under-resourcing is documented, but no site-specific wage, translation, legal, records-preparation or remediation quotations were available from the eight sources.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S7"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Obtain written authorization from one community governing body and its records custodian, then preregister a no-new-contact audit of at most 12 closed projects. Two custodian-approved reviewers should independently code requested and realized participant-contact hours, event access, liaison and translation labor, topic and participant overlap, access sequence, disclosed gatekeeper relationships, restrictions, promised and delivered returns, incidents, remediation and continuing control of data or infrastructure. Reconcile only into community-controlled aggregates. Compare which observed issues would have been addressed by project-level ethics review, a moratorium, collaborative planning and an ethics-qualified lottery. Stop and reject the rivalry diagnosis if there was no period of oversubscription against a retrospectively authorized capacity ceiling, projects did not affect one another's access, cumulative burden remained acceptable, or access differences reflected consent or protected cultural boundaries. Also stop if records cannot be de-identified, authorization is disputed, consent terms prohibit reuse or protected knowledge would be exposed. The sole output is a go/no-go decision on a later paper simulation; it is not an access decision or misconduct finding.","blocking_evidence":["No direct prevalence estimate for cumulative participant, event, liaison or translation burden in the proposed religious-studies setting.","No direct evidence of participant poaching, concealed overlap, disparagement, exclusive gatekeepers, cover applications or collusion.","No identified religious community has authorized an audit or expressed demand for comparative portfolio selection.","No validated community capacity metric or accepted ceiling exists.","No evidence yet that comparative scoring outperforms collaborative planning, moratorium or lottery.","No empirical evidence that the intervention avoids wealthy-institution advantage, consent confusion, panel capture or displaced informal extraction.","Closed project records, incident reports and relationship data are sensitive or proprietary and may be incomplete.","No site-specific cost quotations or remediation-liability estimates are available."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"This evaluation found established community licensing, Tribal research review, Indigenous research-governance standards and coordinated-governance demands, but did not find the exact capacity-budgeted competitive portfolio design in the eight opened sources. That bounded result does not measure world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size or realized impact, and it cannot exclude unpublished, local-language, customary, confidential or non-indexed community practices.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure written authorization from a specific community governing body and records custodian without implying commitment to a contest.","Preregister the ≤12-file audit, capacity definition, coding scheme, alternative explanations, privacy controls and stopping rules.","Produce inter-reviewer agreement and community-controlled aggregate evidence on oversubscription, cumulative burden, overlap and access interdependence.","Demonstrate that the audit can proceed without exposing identities, relationships, restricted knowledge or incompatible-consent records.","Obtain site-specific resource quotations for review labor, liaison work, translation, privacy/legal review and accessible applicant support.","If and only if the audit supports the diagnosis, run a non-live paper simulation comparing the proposed portfolio process with project-level review, collaborative planning, moratorium and qualified lottery, using burden, usefulness, consent and equity falsifiers."],"reason":"Bounded web research establishes the broader governance problem, credible authorizer classes and extensive adjacent prior art, but cannot verify the proposal's decisive premise: locally scarce, strategically interdependent research access with measurable cumulative burden. The next valid evidence requires community authorization and access to sensitive closed-project records; subsequent advantage claims require simulation or live testing. Because those are empirical and partly proprietary, web research should stop here."},"proposal_index":3}