{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"brg-rst-community-fieldwork-access-03","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Community-Governed Contest for Limited Fieldwork Access","problem":"When several research teams seek access to the same religious community, ritual setting, or community-controlled collection, they compete for scarce participant attention, hosting capacity, trusted introductions, and permission to observe or document events. Project-by-project ethics approval does not by itself govern this rivalry. Teams can improve their position by approaching participants first, cultivating exclusive gatekeepers, overstating community support, concealing overlapping recruitment, disparaging rival researchers, or imposing interviews and documentation requests whose cumulative burden is visible to no single review body. The access race can consequently select the best-connected or fastest team rather than a manageable set of projects that produces responsible scholarship under community-defined conditions.","actors":["Individual community members whose voluntary participation is requested","The community body authorized to govern shared facilities, events, or collections","Religious leaders and other access intermediaries","Research teams seeking fieldwork access","Host universities and project sponsors","Research-ethics or institutional-review bodies","Community research liaison or access coordinator","Independent scholarly and data-governance reviewers","Translators, archivists, and local research assistants","Qualified research teams excluded from the current access cycle"],"observable_state":"Within one bounded setting, records can be examined for more approved projects than the community can host; repeated requests to the same participants; overlapping interview or documentation schedules; undisclosed projects pursuing substantially similar material; promises of exclusive access; recruitment before shared authorization; concentration of introductions through a few gatekeepers; pressure to endorse one team over another; inconsistent compensation or return-of-materials commitments; unresolved privacy, translation, or attribution problems; and former grantees controlling data, equipment, or relationships needed by later qualified researchers.","consequence":"Participants and intermediaries may absorb duplicative demands, consent quality may deteriorate under time or relationship pressure, community-controlled knowledge may be mishandled, rival teams may produce redundant or distorted accounts, and an incumbent team may convert temporary access into durable control over subsequent research opportunities.","affected_objective":"Allocate only the community-facilitated research access that participants and shared institutions can safely support, selecting a complementary and accountable portfolio of projects while preserving individual consent, community refusal, cultural restrictions, and research-ethics requirements as noncontestable constraints.","intervention":"After independently deciding whether any facilitated research should occur, the authorized community body sets an access-capacity budget for a defined period and issues a standardized invitation for proposals. Ethics-ready teams disclose personnel, relationships, overlapping projects, participant-contact hours, documentation requests, data custody, expected outputs, return commitments, conflicts, and foreseeable harms. A community-majority panel with independent methodological and data-governance reviewers scores projects for burden-adjusted scholarly value, feasibility, complementarity, language and cultural competence, risk control, reciprocity, and community usefulness. It selects a staggered portfolio within cumulative contact, event-access, recording, and liaison-work ceilings. No score can substitute for individual consent, and the community may reserve events, knowledge, persons, or collections outside the arena. Institutional sponsors secure remediation obligations for specified harms. Access is nonexclusive, time-limited, nontransferable, and subject to graduated responses for participant poaching, concealed overlap, retaliation, deception, or boundary violations. A burden ledger, procedural appeal, later challenger window, and post-project review govern subsequent cycles.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Rivalry purpose statement","domain_realization":"Use bounded competition to identify a manageable portfolio of responsible, complementary projects when the community cannot facilitate every eligible request."},{"archetype_element":"Scarce prize or selection constraint","domain_realization":"A fixed period contains limited liaison hours, participant-contact capacity, event-access windows, workspace, translation support, and permission to use community-controlled materials."},{"archetype_element":"Competitor eligibility boundary","domain_realization":"Teams must demonstrate appropriate ethics status, relevant competence, sponsor accountability, data and cultural-protocol plans, conflict disclosure, and capacity to honor community conditions before comparative selection."},{"archetype_element":"Protected noncontestable floor","domain_realization":"Individual consent, the right to withdraw, community refusal, sacred or restricted knowledge, safety, privacy, and legally or culturally required permissions remain outside the contest and cannot be outweighed by a high score."},{"archetype_element":"Contest arena boundary","domain_realization":"Teams may compete through standardized evidence about their projects. Early recruitment, private pressure on participants or judges, exclusive dealing, disparagement, concealed parallel research, retaliation, and circumvention of access limits are prohibited."},{"archetype_element":"Performance metric and scoring basis","domain_realization":"The panel evaluates expected scholarly contribution relative to participant burden, portfolio complementarity, feasibility, competence, data stewardship, reciprocity, risk control, and plans for returning accessible materials; it does not score a community's religious value or participants' willingness to endorse a researcher."},{"archetype_element":"Fair process and due process","domain_realization":"Eligibility, capacity ceilings, criteria, conflicts, reasons, tie-breaks, and procedural appeal grounds are published before selection, while sensitive community reasons may remain confidential."},{"archetype_element":"Anti-sabotage and anti-collusion guardrail","domain_realization":"Common communication channels, relationship disclosures, a ban on exclusive gatekeeper agreements, and cross-cycle screening constrain attacks, sham competition, reciprocal withdrawal, and coordinated division of access."},{"archetype_element":"Externality and spillover boundary","domain_realization":"A cumulative burden ledger and sponsor-backed remediation obligation account for repeated interviews, privacy breaches, misrepresentation, translation work, disrupted events, data-security costs, and post-project correction."},{"archetype_element":"Escalation and arms-race damper","domain_realization":"Standard proposal limits and project-specific ceilings on contact hours, recording, research personnel, event attendance, and liaison demands prevent teams from winning through larger extractive footprints."},{"archetype_element":"Winner power and lock-in review","domain_realization":"Access expires, exclusive relationships are barred, community-funded infrastructure remains community-controlled, and any future access to consented materials is governed independently of the incumbent team."},{"archetype_element":"Learning and recalibration loop","domain_realization":"Community and ethics reviewers compare projected and realized burden, benefits, harms, compliance, and concentration before setting the next capacity budget or deciding to suspend facilitated research."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"tender_or_rfp_process","role":"Turns ad hoc approaches into a common, time-bounded solicitation with prequalification, declared criteria, sealed proposals, documented reasons, and procedural challenge.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a common solicitation, early arrival, private access to gatekeepers, or proposal polish tailored through informal contact could determine who receives community facilitation."},{"mechanism_slug":"contest_rulebook","role":"Freezes eligibility, capacity ceilings, permitted contact, scoring, conflicts, cultural boundaries, tie-breaks, and appeals before competing teams are known.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a binding rulebook, boundaries could shift under pressure from prominent researchers or be selectively enforced against less-connected entrants."},{"mechanism_slug":"multiple_award_or_portfolio_selection","role":"Selects several complementary projects whose combined participant and hosting burden stays within the community's capacity instead of awarding all access to one team.","counterfactual_removal":"Without portfolio-level selection, separately attractive projects could duplicate questions, overuse the same participants, omit community priorities, or concentrate access in one institution."},{"mechanism_slug":"spending_cap_or_resource_cap","role":"Caps research personnel, participant-contact hours, recording requests, event attendance, and liaison labor, constraining the fuel of the access race rather than merely reviewing outputs afterward.","counterfactual_removal":"Without resource ceilings, teams could seek advantage through larger field presences and more intensive recruitment, exporting the competitive cost to participants and local intermediaries."},{"mechanism_slug":"externality_bond_or_liability_rule","role":"Requires the institutional sponsor to guarantee remediation for specified privacy, data-security, equipment, translation, event-disruption, or correction costs before access begins.","counterfactual_removal":"Without secured responsibility, a team could complete or abandon its project before delayed harms emerge, leaving the community to finance remediation; the guarantee must be calibrated so it does not exclude under-resourced scholars solely for lacking personal wealth."},{"mechanism_slug":"sabotage_or_foul_penalty_schedule","role":"Publishes graduated responses to participant poaching, concealed overlap, deceptive endorsement claims, retaliation, interference with rival projects, unauthorized recording, and repeated boundary violations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without known and consistently applied responses, undermining rivals or bypassing shared access controls could remain an effective route to scarce participants and events."},{"mechanism_slug":"anti_collusion_monitoring","role":"Uses the same cross-cycle screen for repeated reciprocal withdrawals, cover applications, stable divisions of communities or topics, shared undisclosed personnel, and coordinated weak proposals, referring anomalies for independent inquiry only.","counterfactual_removal":"Without monitoring across cycles, incumbents could present controlled allies as competitors or divide access while excluding challengers; treating the screen as proof would risk mislabeling legitimate collaboration."},{"mechanism_slug":"challenger_access_window","role":"Schedules new application periods and expires incumbent facilitation, allowing qualified outsiders to compete without requiring the community to entertain continuous approaches.","counterfactual_removal":"Without bounded reopening, temporary access and accumulated relationships could become indefinite gatekeeping power; continuously open challenges would instead impose persistent burden on the community."},{"mechanism_slug":"post_contest_impact_review","role":"Compares promised and realized burden, stewardship, outputs, community returns, harms, concentration, and participant experience before another access cycle is authorized.","counterfactual_removal":"Without review, underestimated burdens, ineffective safeguards, or incumbent control could be reproduced even when every original proposal appeared compliant."}],"causal_chain":["Multiple research teams seek the same limited participant attention, trusted introductions, events, and community-controlled materials because those inputs support publications, grants, and scholarly standing.","Their outcomes are strategically interdependent: access secured by one team can exhaust capacity, preempt a topic, shape gatekeepers' trust, or make participants unavailable to rivals.","Under project-by-project and first-approach arrangements, teams can benefit from speed, exclusivity, concealed overlap, larger field presence, or pressure on intermediaries, while cumulative burdens remain external to each project's evaluation.","A community-set capacity budget converts those burdens into explicit scarce quantities, and prequalification excludes projects that cannot satisfy noncontestable ethics and cultural conditions.","A standardized solicitation, frozen rulebook, common scoring, resource ceilings, and foul controls make burden-adjusted contribution and complementarity more dependable routes to selection than access capture or escalation.","Portfolio selection coordinates the combined footprint of approved projects, while sponsor-backed liability keeps foreseeable remediation costs with the projects that generate them.","Expiring access, challenger windows, nonexclusive infrastructure, and post-project review prevent one selection from becoming permanent control and allow the community to revise, reduce, or retire the arena."],"baseline":"The baseline is decentralized researcher-initiated access: each team obtains institutional ethics approval, approaches leaders or participants separately, negotiates its own schedule and returns, and manages its own data. A community gatekeeper may accept requests in arrival order or by personal trust, but no shared process compares projects, totals cumulative participant burden, limits competitive contact, secures remediation, documents exclusions, or reopens incumbent access on common terms.","nearest_rivals":["Project-by-project institutional ethics review: protects participants within each protocol but may not compare rival projects, total their combined burdens, or constrain strategic competition for access.","A temporary or permanent research moratorium: directly prevents burden and extraction but forgoes selection among projects; it is preferable whenever safe, voluntary facilitation cannot be established.","Community-based collaborative research without competitive selection: makes the community a research partner and may better fit settings where projects can be jointly designed or capacity is not scarce.","Discretionary selection by a trusted community leader or liaison: reduces administrative work but can concentrate pressure, obscure cumulative tradeoffs, and make personal access the route to selection.","A lottery among ethics-qualified projects: limits favoritism and strategic proposal writing but does not select for complementarity, cumulative burden, stewardship, or community-defined usefulness."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The intervention has a distinct rationale only after the community freely chooses to facilitate some research, sets a genuinely scarce capacity, and faces strategically interdependent qualified projects whose combined burdens require comparative governance. It is inappropriate when consent is unavailable, cultural restrictions bar comparison, a moratorium is safer, all projects can be accommodated independently, or collaborative allocation can resolve demand without rivalry.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"Individual participants retain absolute authority over their own participation, withdrawal, recording, and attribution. The authorized community body controls only shared facilities, events, introductions, services, and community-governed materials. Institutional ethics bodies retain protocol authority, and project sponsors retain legal and remediation obligations. Neither a selection panel nor a high score can override any of these authorities.","authorized_first_step":"With prior authorization from the community body and relevant records custodian, conduct a read-only, de-identified audit of no more than twelve completed or closed research projects from one bounded setting. Construct aggregate timelines of requests, participant-contact estimates, event access, liaison labor, overlaps, promised returns, reported incidents, and continuing control of materials. Use existing records only and make no new contact with participants or unsuccessful applicants.","excluded_actions":["Soliciting new research participation or community endorsements","Opening sacred, confidential, restricted, or culturally controlled records","Overriding individual consent, withdrawal, anonymity, or community refusal","Changing current access, funding, employment, publication, or ethics decisions","Publicly ranking researchers, projects, leaders, communities, or religious traditions","Treating pattern screens as findings of collusion, deception, or misconduct","Requiring individuals to participate because a project won community facilitation","Mandating public data release where consent, privacy, cultural protocol, or community governance restricts it","Imposing personal financial bonds on researchers without assessing exclusion and institutional sponsorship"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if community authorization is disputed, individual-level burden cannot be de-identified, records were obtained under incompatible consent terms, protected knowledge would be exposed, or the audit begins to influence live access decisions. Remove linkage information, issue no participant- or researcher-level findings, preserve only authorized aggregates, and return any prospective contest design to community, ethics, and sponsor review."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The bounded setting has no meaningful cumulative access constraint; participants independently control nonoverlapping requests; teams disclose overlap and coordinate schedules without exclusion; gatekeepers do not confer strategic advantage; project burdens and returns are already aggregated and reviewed; and no incumbent controls later access, data, infrastructure, or relationships.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if research projects do not compete for shared participant, event, liaison, or collection capacity; one team's access does not affect another's prospects; cumulative burden remains within a freely chosen community limit; or observed access differences follow explicit consent and cultural boundaries rather than speed, escalation, sabotage, coordination, or lock-in.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is disfavored if an authorized prospective simulation or later pilot shows that standardized competition increases pressure on communities, favors wealthy institutions, reduces participants' understanding of consent, fails to predict cumulative burden, produces less useful project combinations than community deliberation, or allows sponsor guarantees to function as purchasable permission for harm.","risks":["Formal competition could commodify relationships or make access appear purchasable.","A community panel may not represent dissenting members or people with less institutional power.","Standardized criteria could privilege academic outputs over community-defined value.","Disclosure requirements could expose sensitive relationships, identities, or planned research.","Institutional remediation guarantees could exclude independent or under-resourced researchers.","Contact-hour caps could miss emotional, spiritual, translation, or reputational burdens.","Portfolio scoring could rationalize access that some members believe should not occur at all.","Monitoring reciprocal behavior could mistake legitimate collaboration for collusion.","Gatekeepers could capture the rule-writing process or conceal off-process access.","Researchers might shift extraction into uncapped digital communication or informal relationships.","Post-project review cannot undo privacy loss, damaged trust, or disclosure of restricted knowledge."]},"next_evidence_step":"For one community-authorized setting, preregister an audit protocol and alternative explanations before examining up to twelve closed project files. Two reviewers approved by the records custodian independently code requested and realized participant contact, event use, liaison and translation work, topic overlap, access sequence, disclosed relationships, restrictions, promised returns, incidents, remediation, and continuing control of data or infrastructure. Aggregate the projects on a common timeline, test whether cumulative burden or strategic access routes are visible, and compare what project-level ethics review, a moratorium, collaborative planning, and a lottery would have addressed. The bounded output is a community-controlled go/no-go decision about designing a paper simulation; it is not an access award or misconduct determination.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 governs competition among faculty teams for curricular module slots in a shared introductory course. Its objective is pedagogical portfolio quality, and its causal path runs through common module scoring, preparation caps, complementary curriculum selection, and rotation of teaching opportunities. Proposal 3 instead governs competition among research teams for community-facilitated fieldwork capacity. Its objective is responsible allocation of participant, event, liaison, and collection burdens, and its causal path runs through a community-set capacity budget, cumulative burden accounting, sponsor-backed remediation, nonexclusive access, and preservation of consent as a noncontestable floor. It can be adopted without selecting any course module or changing curriculum. Proposal 2 governs adversarial comparison of rival textual or historical interpretations. Its objective is evidential discrimination among claims, and its causal path runs through head-to-head rounds, steelman tests, source audits, and an expiring reference designation. Proposal 3 neither ranks interpretations nor stages scholarly debates: projects may investigate unrelated questions and are selected as a burden-bounded portfolio. It can be adopted without a journal, tournament, common proposition, interpretation ranking, or provisional scholarly winner.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}