{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology:P2:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology","search_queries":["ethnographic archives repository cultural protocols access Indigenous data governance official","digital preservation repository procurement exit strategy migration costs lock-in official guidance","CoreTrustSeal requirements repository preservation access continuity official 2023","anthropology archives preservation funding repository expressed need consortium","\"Disappearing repositories\" long-term availability research data journal 191 44%","site:dpconline.org digital preservation procurement toolkit exit strategy supplier repository","digital preservation procurement tender repository test data migration exit plan","Mukurtu CMS cultural protocols official features access repository"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Disappearing repositories—taking an infrastructure perspective on the long-term availability of research data","publisher":"Dorothea Strecker, Heinz Pampel, Rouven Schabinger, and Nina Leonie Weisweiler; arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06712","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2023-10-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Repository failure is an observable preservation problem: 191 closed repositories represented 6.2% of the registry studied.","The median repository age at closure was 12 years.","Only 44% of closed repositories migrated data elsewhere, while 12% retained limited access.","Continuity and tested transfer capability address a material rather than merely hypothetical risk."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Welcome to CoPAR!","publisher":"Council for the Preservation of Anthropological Records, University of Maryland","url":"https://www.copar.umd.edu/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["CoPAR is an identifiable anthropology-sector network concerned with preserving anthropological records.","CoPAR supports archival repositories and collaboration between institutional archivists and Native communities.","CoPAR expressly advocates culturally responsive and ethical repository access and stewardship.","CoPAR is a plausible convening or adoption partner, although the page does not express demand for a custody contest."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Public Access at NEH","publisher":"National Endowment for the Humanities","url":"https://www.neh.gov/publicaccess","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NEH is an identifiable funder with authority over covered awards.","Covered recipients must use data-management and sharing plans specifying access and preservation.","The policy expressly encompasses data from archaeological and ethnographic fieldwork.","NEH directs recipients to account for CARE principles, culturally sensitive information, personally identifiable information, and legal and ethical constraints."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"CoreTrustSeal Extended Guidance v2.0","publisher":"CoreTrustSeal Standards and Certification Board","url":"https://www.coretrustseal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-10-CoreTrustSeal-Extended-Guidance-v2_0.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2019-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Trusted-repository assessment already covers mission, licenses, access controls, continuity, ethics, staffing, integrity, provenance, multiple copies, workflows, preservation planning, technical infrastructure, and security.","Continuity evidence should address three-to-five-year and longer plans, service interruption, relocation, transition, return to owners, and cessation of funding.","Sensitive-data repositories require documented access controls and disciplinary, ethical, and legal compliance.","The standard supports prequalification and scoring but does not itself require a comparative custody contest or demonstrated neutral export."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Digital Preservation Procurement Toolkit v2.0","publisher":"Digital Preservation Coalition","url":"https://www.dpconline.org/digipres/implement-digipres/procurement-toolkit","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2022-05","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Structured procurement of third-party digital-preservation services is established practice.","The toolkit provides standardized requirements and ten high-level functional requirements for preservation systems.","The toolkit is intended to improve procurement clarity and efficiency and avoid future preservation problems.","A repository contest rulebook and requirements matrix therefore substantially overlap existing practice."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"The Archive Ingest and Handling Test","publisher":"Library of Congress","url":"https://www.digitalpreservation.gov/partners/aiht.html","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A multi-institution practical test already evaluated wholesale transfer, ingest, management, and export of a digital archive.","The test used a common corpus and compared preservation tools and technologies.","Testing inter-repository transfer feasibility and comparative performance is established prior art.","The proposal's synthetic custody-and-export trial is close to this precedent, although its cultural-protocol, governance, award, and challenge layers differ."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Mukurtu CMS 3.0.7 repository and documentation","publisher":"Mukurtu CMS / Center for Digital Scholarship and Curation, Washington State University","url":"https://github.com/MukurtuCMS/mukurtucms","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An operational open-source system already implements granular local cultural protocols, Traditional Knowledge labels, extended metadata, and community records.","Mukurtu can be self-hosted and locally tested, lowering the technical barrier to a synthetic prototype.","Cultural-protocol execution is technically feasible but depends on correct private-file and role configuration.","Mukurtu is an access platform analogue rather than a complete preservation-custody governance system."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Strategic pathways for Indigenous heritages","publisher":"Library and Archives Canada, Government of Canada","url":"https://www.canada.ca/en/library-archives/corporate/about-us/strategies-initiatives/indigenous-documentary-heritage/strategic-pathways-indigenous-heritages.html","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-05-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A national archive expressly recognizes Indigenous authority over archival records and distinguishes decision authority from physical custody.","LAC commits to joint control, co-management, Indigenous cultural protocols, collective privacy, and repatriation where desired.","Repository selection cannot legitimately transfer underlying access, disposition, or cultural authority merely by contract or contest result.","Live implementation requires collection-specific agreements and legitimate community representation beyond technical testing."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Repository closure, incomplete migration, continuity risk, sensitive-data controls, and culturally legitimate access are externally visible. Primary research quantifies repository shutdown and weak migration coverage; anthropology and government bodies separately identify preservation, culturally responsive stewardship, and governance needs. Evidence does not establish the candidate's more specific allegations of bid rotation, lobbying, or systematic price gaming in ethnographic repository selection.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"CoPAR is an identifiable sector convenor, NEH is an identifiable funder with data-management authority over covered awards, and Library and Archives Canada is an identifiable archival authority expressing stewardship and Indigenous-governance requirements. None expressly requests a reversible custody contest, dual-custodian award, transition reserve, or challenger window, and no specific consortium has committed a collection or endowment.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Digital Preservation Coalition Procurement Toolkit","similarity":"Provides established structures and requirements for competitive procurement of digital-preservation systems and services.","remaining_difference":"Does not prescribe an anthropology-specific synthetic protocol trial, dual custody, identity-permutation testing, transition reserve, or challenger trigger.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Library of Congress Archive Ingest and Handling Test","similarity":"Uses a common test corpus for practical, multi-institution evaluation of ingest, management, wholesale transfer, and export.","remaining_difference":"Was an infrastructure feasibility and comparative-technology exercise, not an award contest governed by community authority, lifecycle price, appeals, anti-collusion screens, and time-limited custody.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"CoreTrustSeal repository certification","similarity":"Already assesses nearly all proposed qualification dimensions, including continuity, ethics, rights, staffing, integrity, provenance, storage copies, workflows, preservation, infrastructure, and security.","remaining_difference":"Certification establishes an evidence-based floor but does not comparatively execute held-out cultural-protocol, interruption, withdrawal, or neutral-restoration tasks.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Mukurtu CMS","similarity":"Operationalizes culturally specific access protocols, community records, metadata, and Traditional Knowledge labels in an open-source platform.","remaining_difference":"It is an access and stewardship component, not a complete preservation service, procurement method, independent recovery arrangement, or custody-authority framework.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"Library and Archives Canada Indigenous heritage pathways","similarity":"Separates custody from authority and specifies joint control, cultural protocols, privacy, co-management, and repatriation.","remaining_difference":"Uses institutional commitments and successive action plans rather than rivalry among repositories.","source_ids":["S8"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Among repositories already meeting a certification floor, adding an identity-blinded, held-out synthetic trial of cultural-protocol execution, outage recovery, complete neutral restoration, and portfolio independence to ordinary procurement will predict live stewardship and portability better than certification-plus-direct-appointment, without materially excluding smaller qualified repositories or displacing legitimate community authority.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Common-corpus transfer testing, preservation procurement requirements, repository certification criteria, and locally deployable cultural-protocol software all exist. A synthetic exercise is technically and operationally credible. Legal and workflow feasibility for live records remains conditional on collection-specific rights, privacy law, depositor agreements, community authority, security review, and a clear allocation of responsibility between primary and recovery custodians. Anti-collusion inference and long-term predictive validity are not established.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Failure or lock-in can impair long-term access to irreplaceable records, and repository shutdown is documented; the attainable impact is nevertheless conditional on trial performance predicting long-term stewardship.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relevant networks, funders, and public archives express preservation and cultural-governance needs, but no source expresses demand or budget for this particular contest design.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Executed held-out protocol and restoration tasks could reveal capabilities that documentary certification and direct appointment miss, but this advantage has not been compared empirically.","source_ids":["S4","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Procurement, repository certification, common-corpus transfer testing, cultural-protocol systems, and Indigenous co-governance are all established; novelty is confined to their specific integration and comparative predictive claim.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing standards, test precedents, and deployable software make a synthetic prototype feasible; faithful emulation of heterogeneous cultural rules and complete export remains nontrivial.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A lawful collection controller and funder can procure custody, but they cannot transfer depositor, subject, or Indigenous decision authority through the contest; live authority must be verified collection by collection.","source_ids":["S3","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The problem, components, standards, and test method are documented. The causal claim—better prediction of live stewardship without exclusion or authority displacement—requires proprietary submissions and controlled testing.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Synthetic-only first testing, independent recovery, transfer planning, and explicit separation of custody from authority create meaningful safeguards, subject to avoiding common-control and privacy failures.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Reusable rulebooks and synthetic corpora could scale across consortium collections, but cultural rules, governing authorities, legal regimes, corpus size, and repository infrastructure require substantial tailoring.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design an authority-safe synthetic corpus; configure three prototype environments; recruit preservation, cultural-protocol, security, cost, and appeal evaluators; execute identity-permuted trials; and analyze results.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Eight to ten synthetic submissions and three small prototype environments.","No restricted records, production integrations, or paid repository bids.","Approximately 800–2,000 specialist hours plus modest hosting and audit costs.","Resource-equivalent estimate rather than a vendor quotation."],"source_ids":["S4","S6","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Prepare a partnered pilot using nonrestricted institutional records, complete legal and governance mapping, build scoring and export harnesses, prequalify repositories, conduct security review, and establish an independent recovery environment.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One bounded collection below very-large-archive scale.","Three to five qualified repositories.","Existing repository platforms are adapted rather than built from scratch.","Excludes the preservation endowment and repository prize payments."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Run the production tender and trials, migrate and verify a live heterogeneous collection, establish primary and organizationally independent recovery custody, fund external audits and appeals, and capitalize a transition reserve.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A multi-terabyte collection with mixed media and sensitive metadata.","Five-year contracts are negotiated separately from this launch estimate.","No major digitization backlog, conservation work, or purpose-built data center.","Transition reserve is included, preservation endowment principal is excluded."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Preservation storage and integrity checking, protocol administration, synchronized independent recovery, incident response, annual impact review, community-governance participation, security audit, and transfer-readiness testing.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Moderate collection growth and access volume.","Existing institutional staffing and infrastructure absorb some overhead.","No catastrophic remediation, mass digitization, or litigation.","Two genuinely independent custodial environments remain in service."],"source_ids":["S4","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent primary and official evidence establishes repository closure, incomplete migration, preservation continuity risk, and culturally governed access requirements.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S8"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"CoPAR is a credible anthropology preservation network, NEH is a relevant funder, and public archives such as LAC exercise stewardship authority; interest in the specific contest remains unverified.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim compares an executed, identity-blinded protocol/recovery/portability trial against certification-plus-direct-appointment and measures predictive validity, inclusion, authority preservation, and restoration success.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A synthetic, nonrestricted three-arm exercise can be time-boxed, directly compared, and stopped before any live custody transfer.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step uses invented records and transfers no custody or underlying authority. Live deployment remains prohibited until collection-specific rights, community authority, privacy, security, and role separation are verified.","source_ids":["S3","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The work packages can be bounded, but corpus volume, media mix, staffing, legal review, storage, security level, repository participation, contract value, and reserve sizing are unspecified; the bands are resource-equivalent estimates without direct price evidence.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Run a 12–16 week preregistered synthetic evaluation with 8–10 submissions and three executable repository environments. Randomize each submission's institutional identity and compare: (A) CoreTrustSeal-style documentary qualification followed by direct appointment, (B) qualification followed by lottery among qualified repositories, and (C) qualification plus the proposed held-out performance contest and independent-recovery portfolio selection. Include known access-rule violations, embargo and withdrawal changes, corrupted files, outage, proprietary-metadata lock-in, a polished low-price bid, a portable small repository, a cover-bid pattern, and an innocent specialist. Primary outcomes are blinded rank stability, violation-detection sensitivity and false-positive rate, successful bit-complete and metadata-complete restoration in a neutral environment, preservation of cultural-protocol semantics, evaluator hours, small-repository completion rate, appeal reversals, portfolio organizational independence, and unresolved authority questions. Falsify or materially revise the proposal if rank correlation under identity permutation is below 0.80, any known embargo or withdrawal violation reaches an authorized output, fewer than 90% of planted material violations are detected, neutral restoration fails for the selected portfolio, false collusion referrals exceed 10%, the contest excludes a qualified small repository solely through overhead, evaluator cost exceeds twice the documentary comparator without superior failure detection, or governance reviewers cannot identify who has authority for every simulated access and disposition decision. This step can establish operational discriminative validity only; predicting multi-year live stewardship requires a subsequent authorized pilot.","blocking_evidence":["No specific consortium has documented a pending five-year custody decision, committed collection, endowment, or willingness to run the proposed contest.","No field evidence shows that ethnographic repositories commonly coordinate bids, lobby gatekeepers, conceal exit costs, or strategically divide custody mandates.","No comparative evidence shows that synthetic performance scores predict multi-year preservation, cultural-protocol fidelity, lifecycle cost, or live transfer outcomes better than certification and contract controls.","No collection-specific authority map establishes which depositors, record subjects, Indigenous governments, community bodies, ethics boards, or institutions may authorize custody, access, withdrawal, replication, and disposition.","No evidence establishes that a nominally independent recovery custodian would be legally, financially, technically, and operationally independent from the primary custodian.","Corpus size, media composition, security classification, service levels, repository participation costs, endowment size, and transition-reserve exposure are unknown.","The validity and base rate required for anti-collusion screens in this specialized repository market are unknown.","Long-horizon effects on trust, continuity of relationships, community burden, and repository investment incentives require live longitudinal evidence."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"This evaluation measured neither world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, nor realized impact. Bounded search found established preservation procurement, repository certification, common-corpus comparative transfer testing, cultural-protocol software, and Indigenous co-governance. It did not find the exact integrated arrangement of identity-blinded held-out cultural-protocol testing, dual organizational custody, transition security, anti-collusion referral, and a timed challenger window for ethnographic archives; absence from eight sources is not evidence of global novelty.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure a named consortium, lawful collection controller, source-community governance partner, and repository participants for a synthetic-only study.","Preregister the three comparators, outcome measures, identity-permutation procedure, planted failures, cost accounting, and quantitative falsifiers.","Demonstrate complete neutral restoration while preserving provenance, embargo, withdrawal, and cultural-protocol semantics.","Measure whether the contest detects materially more planted failures than certification-plus-direct-appointment at acceptable evaluator cost.","Show that at least one smaller qualified repository can complete the process without capability-independent exclusion.","Produce a decision-level authority matrix covering custody, access, replication, withdrawal, disposition, appeal, and emergency transfer.","Obtain independent security, privacy, ethics, and community-governance review before introducing any non-synthetic records.","Use a later authorized pilot and longitudinal follow-up to test whether synthetic rankings predict live stewardship, portability, trust, and lifecycle cost."],"reason":"The bounded web review established a real problem, credible institutional stakeholders, strong technical feasibility, and substantial prior-art collision. The only consequential remaining advantage is empirical: whether this integrated contest predicts live stewardship and portability better than established certification, procurement, testing, and contractual governance without creating exclusion, burden, or authority displacement. Answering that claim requires proprietary submissions, controlled prototype execution, partner authorization, and ultimately longitudinal live testing; under the specified controller rule this requires STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED, with repairable set false."},"proposal_index":2}