{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology:P4:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology","proposal_index":4,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal specifically claims that, within genuinely comparable and pre-authorized preservation lots, audited externality-adjusted subsidy bids will better predict realized lifecycle costs and allocate capacity more cost-effectively than narrative, first-come, formula, or lottery processes without worsening exclusion, harm, change orders, concentration, or stranded outputs."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official and primary sources establish substantial preservation risk, scarce competitive funding, under-resourced custodians, and consequential preparation, rights, metadata, storage, migration, and remediation obligations, although the narrower allegations of strategic bidding remain unverified."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"Preservation funders or library consortia operating recurring allocation programs are a concrete adopter class; their records owners, participating custodians, community authorities, and conservation reviewers can collectively authorize the required retrospective access."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The central uncertainties require proprietary requested-versus-realized lifecycle records, change orders, remediation data, and expert reconstruction; public research cannot establish lot comparability, predictive accuracy, exclusion, or concentration effects."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is conditional on records-owner and custodian authorization, read-only, limited to closed projects, de-identified, nonbinding, and excludes material inspection, permission reopening, live-award changes, and findings about individual bidders."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The study is capped at ten closed projects and three predefined categories, preregisters fields and thresholds, uses two independent reviewers, compares several allocation rules, and ends with a go/no-go decision for only a nonbinding simulation."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES. Cost scope is uncertain rather than materially NO, and qualification rests on resolving comparative performance and workflow feasibility through partner data, not on cost uncertainty alone."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action identifies the authorizers, records, sample limit, categories, reviewers, comparators, outcomes, preregistration requirements, advancement decision, and explicit stopping thresholds."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A library consortium or preservation funder with recurring oversubscribed preservation allocations, complete records for closed projects, authority over its subsidy or mobile-lab capacity, and established relationships with custodians, relevant community authorities, conservators, and records owners.","required_access":"Written authorization plus secure, de-identified access to proposed and realized lifecycle-cost records for up to ten closed projects, including preparation, conservation, lab work, metadata, return, storage, migration, change orders, remediation, restrictions, and award outcomes; access to two qualified conservation-cost reviewers is also required.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister no more than three format-and-treatment categories, candidate work units, lifecycle and externality fields, missing-data rules, alternative explanations, comparability thresholds, and harm and exclusion outcomes. Two independent reviewers reconstruct proposed and realized costs for at most ten closed projects. Test whether an externality-adjusted ordering can be calculated without exposing restricted information, assess reviewer agreement and out-of-sample cost prediction, and compare simulated allocations with the actual narrative ranking and first-come, formula, and eligibility-lottery baselines.","success_condition":"Advance only to a nonbinding sealed-bid simulation if reviewer agreement meets the preregistered threshold, at least 75% of projects remain genuinely comparable, discretionary adjustments do not dominate ordering, adjusted bids improve realized-cost prediction by the preregistered material margin, and simulated allocation does not worsen protected-custodian exclusion, concentration, safety, change orders, or stranded outputs relative to comparators.","falsification_condition":"Do not advance if reviewer agreement is poor, more than 25% of projects are incomparable, adjustments dominate price discovery, adjusted ordering does not materially improve prediction, protected or under-resourced custodians are disproportionately excluded, or simulated concentration or safety outcomes worsen.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: adjacent grantmaking and reverse-auction practices leave a differentiated comparative claim, credible preservation need, and a bounded retrospective test. The decisive evidence is institution-specific and proprietary, so authorized partner access is genuinely necessary. The design preserves cultural and custodial authority and cannot affect live allocations; its result is a falsifiable go/no-go decision rather than an open-ended request for further research."}