{"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 retains a contrastive, falsifiable claim that, within genuinely comparable and pre-authorized preservation lots, externality-adjusted reverse bids will predict realized lifecycle costs and improve allocation over narrative, first-come, formula, and lottery baselines without worsening exclusion, harm, change orders, concentration, or stranded outputs."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official and first-party evidence establishes preservation risk, scarce competitive funding, under-resourced custodians, and consequential lifecycle obligations, although the narrower prevalence of strategic underbidding, coordination, and lock-in remains an empirical uncertainty."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A library consortium or preservation funder operating recurring allocations is a concrete adopter class; records owners, custodians, relevant community authorities, and conservation-cost reviewers are identifiable necessary study participants."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The core questions require authorized proposed-versus-realized cost, change-order, metadata, storage, remediation, and award records that are proprietary or institution-specific and cannot be resolved through ordinary public research."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is a read-only, authorized, de-identified retrospective of at most ten closed projects, with no material handling, permission reopening, live-award changes, custodian ranking, or collusion findings and with explicit halt conditions for disputed authority or protected information."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The preregistered study caps projects and categories, uses two independent reviewers, compares multiple allocation baselines, specifies comparability and adverse-outcome thresholds, and ends in a go/no-go decision for only a nonbinding simulation."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES for the retrospective step. Cost scope is uncertain, but it is not a safety or authority stop and requires partner-specific records, labor, governance, and infrastructure scoping alongside the empirical reconstruction."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action specifies the partner authorizations, closed-project dataset, preregistered variables and thresholds, independent reconstruction procedure, comparators, measured outcomes, and advancement decision."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A library consortium, preservation grantmaker, or mobile-laboratory operator with recurring oversubscribed allocations, authority over its own subsidy and lab capacity, up to ten completed projects in one to three narrow format-and-treatment categories, accessible proposed-and-realized lifecycle records, and willing records owners, custodians, community authorities, conservators, and privacy/legal reviewers.","required_access":"Written authorization to use de-identified administrative and technical records for up to ten closed projects, including proposed and realized preparation, treatment, digitization, metadata, return, storage, migration, change-order, and remediation inputs; access to two independent conservation-cost reviewers; and governance review sufficient to confirm that no restricted content or disputed authority is implicated.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister at most three format-and-treatment categories, candidate work units, lifecycle and externality fields, alternative explanations, missing-data rules, comparability criteria, comparator allocations, and harm/exclusion thresholds. Two independent reviewers reconstruct proposed and realized inputs for no more than ten closed projects. Test whether an externality-adjusted ordering can be calculated without exposing protected information, whether it predicts realized lifecycle cost better than requested budgets and narrative ranking, and how its simulated allocation compares with narrative-panel, first-come, collection-size formula, and eligibility-lottery baselines. Produce only a go/no-go decision for a nonbinding sealed-bid simulation.","success_condition":"Advance only if reviewer agreement meets the preregistered threshold, at least 75% of projects remain genuinely comparable, discretionary adjustments do not dominate bid ordering, adjusted bids materially improve out-of-sample prediction of realized lifecycle cost, and simulated allocation does not worsen protected- or under-resourced-custodian exclusion, concentration, safety, change orders, or stranded outputs relative to the comparators.","falsification_condition":"Do not advance if reviewer agreement is poor, more than 25% of projects are incomparable, protected information is needed to construct units, discretionary externality adjustments dominate price discovery, adjusted bids do not materially improve realized-cost prediction, or the simulated mechanism worsens cultural exclusion, material risk, change orders, concentration, or stranded outputs.","rationale":"This is an appropriate empirical-partner candidate because adjacent preservation grantmaking and reverse-auction practice leave a specific untested combination rather than eliminating the claim. Public evidence supports the underlying preservation and scarcity problem but cannot resolve lot comparability, predictive advantage, workflow fit, exclusion risk, or institution-specific scope. Those uncertainties require bounded access to authorized closed-project records and can be resolved by a safe, comparator-based retrospective with explicit advancement and falsification rules."}