{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology:P1:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology","search_queries":["site:hhs.gov OHRP 45 CFR 46 IRB cumulative community burden recruitment official","anthropology research fatigue over researched communities gatekeepers fieldwork study","community advisory board research governance fieldwork access university official guidance","university field research community research review board protocol access indigenous data sovereignty","community research review board manages research requests burden duplication community official","community research registry avoid research fatigue duplicate studies official","site:pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov community research review board IRB community burden review","site:anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com AAA ethics code informed consent do no harm official","\"over-researched community\" ethics analysis stakeholder views two South African HIV prevention research sites 2017","site:hhs.gov/ohrp regulations 45 CFR 46 IRB community risk consent 2018 requirements","site:americananthro.org ethics statement anthropology informed consent results communities","site:bls.gov OEWS social scientists postsecondary teachers wages 2025","site:bls.gov/oes/2025/may social scientists all other hourly mean wage","site:bls.gov/ooh community and social service occupations median pay 2025","site:bls.gov/oes/current oes193099 social scientists all other","\"Characteristics of research review boards\" PubMed","site:americananthro.org \"Statement on Ethics\" anthropology PDF","site:americananthro.org ethics principles anthropologists do no harm consent","\"Kuchoka\" \"research fatigue\" Mosoriot Kenya DOI journal date authors","\"Kuchoka\": Investigation of research fatigue in Mosoriot, Kenya"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"“Kuchoka”: Investigation of research fatigue in Mosoriot, Kenya","publisher":"PLOS ONE","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12788630/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2026-01-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A cross-sectional study of 327 community members measured research-fatigue prevalence at 56.3%.","Repeated research involvement was associated with fatigue, and fatigue implicated withdrawal, response bias, voluntariness, and future participation.","This supports the general importance of cumulative research burden but does not establish prevalence at the proposed field station."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"The ‘over-researched community’: An ethics analysis of stakeholder views at two South African HIV prevention research sites","publisher":"Social Science & Medicine (Elsevier)","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027795361730610X","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2017-12-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Stakeholders at two research sites recognized over-research as a potential barrier and as a label spanning exploitation and relationship problems.","The study cautions that over-research is conceptually ambiguous and should be decomposed into specific observable concerns.","This contradicts any assumption that cumulative burden alone proves a distinct rivalry-governance problem."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"45 CFR 46","publisher":"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections","url":"https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html?locale=us","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2025-02-11","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The Common Rule supplies enforceable protections and IRB requirements for covered human-subjects research.","A university contest cannot replace applicable IRB review or individual consent protections.","The regulation does not itself establish a cross-project allocation process for cumulative community burden or competition among teams."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Anthropological Ethics","publisher":"American Anthropological Association","url":"https://americananthro.org/about/anthropological-ethics/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["AAA professional principles include doing no harm, openness, informed consent and necessary permissions, weighing obligations to affected parties, returning results, and respectful relationships.","Collective selection or community-council approval cannot substitute for each participant’s voluntary consent and necessary permissions.","The proposed safeguards are aligned with professional ethics, although AAA guidance does not authorize the proposed council or contest."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Community-Based Review of Research Across Diverse Community Contexts: Key Characteristics, Critical Issues, and Future Directions","publisher":"American Journal of Public Health","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4463398/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2015-07-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A national study identified 109 community-based research-review processes and 30 more in development; the article closely examined nine operating models.","Existing processes determine whether and how research occurs, consider community risks and benefits beyond conventional IRBs, shape research agendas, and sometimes act as gatekeepers.","Named models include university-based, community-based, and federally recognized review bodies; some participate in research selection, design, implementation, and dissemination.","The article reports explicit demand from community members for more control and from investigators for design and recruitment help, while noting workload, authority, and institutional-conflict challenges."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Characteristics of research review boards in the context of community-academic settings: A scoping review","publisher":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science (Cambridge University Press)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12083201/","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2025-03-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The review found 24 distinct community research-review boards described in 25 articles.","Boards commonly center community protection and representation but vary in membership, governance, reach, evaluation, and funding.","Only a minority reported systematic evaluation; comparable impact evidence remains sparse.","Sustainability, communication, conflicts of interest or commitment, and power differentials remain implementation concerns."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Community Review Board FAQs for Researchers","publisher":"University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Translational Research Institute","url":"https://tri.uams.edu/community-review-board-faqs-for-researchers/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["UAMS operates a community-review service for study design, recruitment, implementation, retention, and dissemination feedback.","Its documented workflow uses a two-hour board of six to eight community experts, institutional coordination, participant incentives, facilitation, and a written report.","This identifies a credible university adopter of adjacent workflow and supplies a concrete labor-and-logistics analogue, but the board is consultative rather than a competitive allocator."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Table 1. National employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey by occupation, May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm?mod=article_inline","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026-05-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["May 2025 mean hourly wages were $51.78 for other social scientists, $31.80 for social-science research assistants, and $30.49 for community and social-service occupations.","These wage data support order-of-magnitude conversion of panel, coordination, analysis, and community-review hours into 2026 resource-equivalent costs.","Benefits, institutional overhead, legal review, technology, and participant compensation require additional assumptions."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Repeated and concentrated research can produce measurable fatigue, ethical concerns, withdrawal pressure, and response bias, and established community-review bodies were created partly because project-level IRBs do not reliably address community-level risks. However, no external source verifies the candidate’s specific field station, two-placement scarcity, 120-hour limit, exclusive gatekeeping, honorarium escalation, collusion, cover applications, or incumbent rotation. The South African evidence also warns that ‘over-research’ can obscure several distinct problems. The broad problem exists and matters; the stated local causal pattern remains unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Universities and community organizations demonstrably operate research-review boards, and documented rationales include community demand for voice, large volumes of local research, community-level risks, and investigators’ need for recruitment and design guidance. UAMS is an identifiable university operator with a concrete service workflow. No named field station, neighborhood council, funder, or university official has expressed demand for competitive allocation, portfolio selection, cross-cycle collusion screening, retained remediation funds, or the proposed authority split.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Community-based research review processes and community IRBs","similarity":"Established bodies already determine whether and how research occurs, review community-level risks and cultural appropriateness, shape agendas, and in some cases participate in research selection and act as gatekeepers.","remaining_difference":"The candidate jointly governs a verified scarce institutional prize through frozen comparative scoring, portfolio selection, equalized inputs, sanctions, reopening, and cross-cycle anomaly referral.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Project-independent community research-review boards","similarity":"Twenty-four documented boards provide durable community representation and protection outside a single project, with governance, conflict, equity, feedback, and evaluation concerns overlapping the proposal.","remaining_difference":"The literature reviewed does not establish the candidate’s two-award tournament, portfolio-complementarity rule, anti-collusion screen, spending cap, or comparative advantage over noncompetitive allocation.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"UAMS Community Review Board service","similarity":"A university coordinates community experts, standardized preparation, a bounded session, participant incentives, facilitation, and a report addressing recruitment and implementation.","remaining_difference":"UAMS offers consultation to an investigator; it does not rank rival teams, allocate placements, penalize conduct, or control field-site access.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"Common Rule IRB review plus AAA professional ethics","similarity":"Existing regulation and professional guidance already require human-subject protections, consent, permissions, harm consideration, openness, and attention to affected parties.","remaining_difference":"These standards primarily govern projects and researcher conduct, not strategic interaction or cumulative allocation across competing teams.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"At a site where scarce institution-controlled placements and strategic interaction are first verified, the integrated bounded arena—compared on the same eligible proposals with centralized scheduling plus ordinary ethics review and with an ethics-qualified lottery—will reduce duplicative contacts, access concentration, concealed burden, and identity-sensitive selection without reducing blinded methodological quality or consuming more liaison and community-review time than it saves.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Community-review boards, standardized sessions, institutional coordination, participant compensation, reports, professional ethics, and IRB coexistence are established and make the tabletop technically straightforward. Live implementation remains unproven: comparative scoring and portfolio rules may be gamed; councils can reproduce gatekeeping; monitoring collaboration can create false accusations; retained funds require university policy and accounting authority; data logs create privacy and surveillance risks; and the board’s legal or recognized authority over venues and institutional sponsorship must be separated from individual consent and private access.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Research fatigue and community-level harm can affect autonomy, participation, trust, and data validity, but the candidate’s local prevalence, severity, and rivalry mechanism have not been demonstrated.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Universities and communities have created adjacent review bodies in response to expressed needs, but no stakeholder has requested this competitive allocation design.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal adds a coherent rivalry layer, but community review, gatekeeping, conflict management, standardized consultation, and community-risk assessment are established; no evidence shows superiority to scheduling, qualification, lottery, or collaborative agenda setting.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integrated package for rival teams competing for scarce field-station placements is contrastively identifiable, but much of it may reduce to combining established community review with ordinary grant or resource-allocation controls.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A synthetic tabletop and lightweight ledger, rubric, conflict register, appeal simulation, and permutation test are technically feasible using established board workflows; live anti-collusion inference and burden accounting are harder.","source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"A university can generally control its funds, staff time, venues, and sponsorship, but the proposed neighborhood council is unnamed, its representational legitimacy is unverified, and neither institution nor council can allocate individual people, private spaces, records, or consent. Retentions and sanctions also need policy authority.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate specifies observables and a reproducible tabletop, but supplies no site records, baseline rates, validated rubric, inter-rater targets, adopter commitment, or prospective live comparison plan.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Consent floors, appeals, anomaly-to-inquiry separation, expiring awards, and remediation reserves could reduce harm, but added surveillance, false collusion referrals, council capture, and process burden could create new harms.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Many review-board models show organizational replicability, but local authority, representation, trust, cultural fit, funding, and evaluation vary substantially, and the contest adds recurring overhead.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One blinded tabletop using 8–12 synthetic applications across three allocation conditions, two identity permutations, planted gaming cases, facilitated community/methods/ethics/appeal roles, scoring analysis, and a decision report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 120–300 total paid hours across design, facilitation, reviewers, community experts, analysis, and administration.","Community-role compensation and accessibility support are included.","No live recruitment, production software, legal opinion, or actual placement award is included.","BLS wage data are increased for benefits and institutional overhead; UAMS’s two-hour, six-to-eight-person board is the workflow analogue."],"source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Site-specific baseline audit, authority and policy review, council-selection safeguards, rulebook and rubric validation, privacy-preserving contact ledger, conflict and appeal procedures, training, and remediation-fund design before a live semester.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Requires 0.3–1.0 FTE-equivalent project leadership for 6–12 months plus legal, ethics, privacy, accessibility, and community compensation.","Uses existing university case-management and data systems rather than custom enterprise software.","Excludes scientific costs of the two underlying fieldwork awards.","Range is wide because the field station, council, labor rules, and institutional systems are unspecified."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One separately authorized semester cycle: application administration, compensated council and methods review, conflict checks, appeals, privacy-controlled logs, monitoring and inquiry capacity, post-contest review, and a bounded remediation reserve.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The stated 120 liaison hours are treated as part of the institutional placement resource; governance overhead is additional.","One cycle handles approximately 8–12 teams and two awards.","Underlying research-award principal is excluded because its amount is not specified; only retained administration or remediation resources are included.","No major misconduct investigation or litigation occurs."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Two semester cycles per year with coordination, compensated review and appeals, ledger stewardship, annual training, rule recalibration, reporting, and replenishment of a modest remediation reserve.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 0.4–1.0 FTE-equivalent coordination and analysis plus paid community, methods, ethics, and appeal time.","Existing university facilities and information-security services are available.","Costs rise above the band if independent investigations, custom systems, extensive translation, or the underlying placement awards are included.","BLS wages anchor labor equivalents, not vendor quotes or an institution-specific budget."],"source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"External research strongly supports cumulative research fatigue and community-level review gaps in other settings, but no source verifies the stated field station, scarcity, misconduct, or causal role of rivalry.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"UAMS and multiple community-academic bodies credibly operate adjacent review processes, but no identifiable organization has expressed need for or authority to adopt this competitive arena.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The arena can be compared prospectively with centralized scheduling plus ethics review and an ethics-qualified lottery using selection quality, identity sensitivity, burden, concentration, false-referral, and process-time outcomes.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The synthetic, blinded, identity-permuted tabletop can be time-boxed, uses no participant recruitment, has explicit comparators and measurable failure conditions, and can precede any live authority claim.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The tabletop is low risk, but live use requires proof of council legitimacy, privacy and due-process rules, university authority for retentions and sanctions, IRB compatibility, and strict preservation of individual consent and private-access rights.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four bands state inclusions and exclusions, use a documented community-board workflow and official wage anchors, and disclose low confidence where site, legal, system, and award costs are unknown.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Run a pre-registered tabletop within six weeks using 8–12 synthetic applications and the same planted cases under three conditions: (A) documented first-come/discretionary scheduling plus ordinary ethics prereview, (B) an ethics-qualified lottery, and (C) the proposed bounded arena. Separate community, methods, ethics, inquiry, and appeal roles; repeat condition C after permuting team identities. Measure blinded selection quality, portfolio redundancy, contact-burden allocation, incumbent concentration, planted-violation detection, false referrals for innocent parallel behavior, inter-rater reliability, appeal reversals, role-boundary violations, and total reviewer/liaison hours. Do not proceed if condition C fails to improve at least one predeclared burden or concentration measure without worsening blinded methodological quality, produces materially identity-dependent results, treats anomaly flags as guilt, has unacceptable false referrals, or consumes more community and liaison time than the synthetic scheduling problem. A successful tabletop establishes only procedural feasibility; validation of benefit still requires a separately consented and authorized live or prospective field comparison.","blocking_evidence":["No external evidence verifies that the named field-station situation, two-placement constraint, 120-hour limit, or alleged strategic behaviors actually exist.","No named university, field station, neighborhood council, funder, or official has committed to the proposal or confirmed authority boundaries.","No baseline prevalence is available for duplicative contacts, exclusivity, concealed burden, honorarium escalation, reciprocal scoring, cover applications, incumbent persistence, complaints, or sampling distortion.","No comparative evidence shows that bounded rivalry outperforms centralized scheduling, an ethics-qualified lottery, or participatory agenda setting.","Council composition, representativeness, accountability, and protection against becoming a new gatekeeper are unspecified.","Legal and policy authority for award retention, sanctions, contact logging, cross-cycle monitoring, data access, and independent appeals is unverified.","Anti-collusion indicators and acceptable false-referral thresholds have not been validated in small scholarly fields where collaboration is normal.","The cost bands are labor-based resource estimates, not institution-specific quotes, and exclude unspecified scientific placement awards.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not measured."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes extensive prior practice in community-based research review, community IRBs, project-independent review boards, university community-review services, human-subject regulation, and anthropology ethics. It did not establish an exact published implementation combining scarce fieldwork-placement allocation, portfolio selection, equalized competitive inputs, cross-cycle anti-collusion referral, retained remediation funds, expiring awards, and post-contest review. Absence from this bounded eight-source search is not evidence of world novelty; world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Obtain a named field-station and community partner’s written confirmation of the scarce resources, observed strategic interactions, authority boundaries, and willingness to evaluate alternatives.","Audit at least two prior semesters of proprietary scheduling, recruitment, honorarium, liaison, complaint, concentration, and appeal records under an approved privacy plan.","Complete the three-condition synthetic tabletop with preregistered metrics, identity permutation, independent anomaly adjudication, and explicit time-cost accounting.","Define council selection, representation, recusals, data access, complaint handling, appeals, and participant-consent boundaries in instruments approved by university legal, ethics, and privacy authorities.","Pre-register a separately authorized live or prospective comparison with centralized scheduling and a qualified lottery, including stopping rules for burden, complaints, concentration, sampling distortion, false allegations, and administrative overload.","Produce an institution-specific budget including community compensation, accessibility and translation, data stewardship, independent appeals and inquiries, remediation reserve, and the treatment of underlying placement-award funds."],"reason":"Bounded web research establishes the general problem and substantial adjacent practice but cannot verify the candidate’s site-specific scarcity, strategic behavior, authority, comparative advantage, or realized safety. Those questions require proprietary records, partner commitments, tabletop testing, and ultimately prospective field evidence. Under the required controller rule, this is an empirical-research stop and therefore repairable is false."},"proposal_index":1}