{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology:P4:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology","search_queries":["site:ukdataservice.ac.uk qualitative data reuse secondary analysis ethics consent","site:qualitative-research.net qualitative secondary analysis archived data context","registered reports qualitative research preregistration journal official","competitive research incentives scientific misconduct negative results study","site:qdr.syr.edu active citation qualitative data transparency official","site:osf.io qualitative preregistration template qualitative research","COREQ 32-item checklist interviews focus groups primary paper DOI","site:hhs.gov OHRP secondary research identifiable private information exemption","Qualitative Data Repository active citation ATI official Syracuse","Qualitative Data Repository data access controls human participants official","Haven Van Grootel preregistering qualitative research accountability openness paper","adversarial collaboration social science methodology empirical paper","John Loewenstein Prelec 2012 questionable research practices Psychological Science DOI","Rationale and guidelines for empirical adversarial collaboration Thinking Reasoning initiative DOI","site:ukdataservice.ac.uk consent sharing qualitative data ethical legal official guidance","National Academies Fostering Integrity in Research hypercompetitive environment misconduct"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Fostering Integrity in Research","publisher":"National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/21896/chapter/2","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2017","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Research misconduct and detrimental research practices materially threaten the research enterprise.","Research integrity depends on objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship.","Journals, sponsors, institutions, and disciplinary communities share responsibility for incentive structures and integrity practices."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling","publisher":"SAGE Publications / Psychological Science","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611430953","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2012-04-16","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A survey of research psychologists documented self-reported questionable research practices, supporting the general existence of selective or biased research behavior.","The study is evidence about psychology researchers, not direct prevalence evidence for competitive ethnographic reanalysis."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"ReShare Data Review Procedures","publisher":"UK Data Service","url":"https://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/reshare-review-procedures/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An operational qualitative-data repository checks disclosure risk, consent, copyright, documentation, file integrity, and access conditions.","Repository review explicitly does not establish the scientific validity of deposited research data.","Controlled qualitative-data review is feasible but requires documentation and human oversight."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Preregistering Qualitative Research","publisher":"Tilburg University Research Portal / Accountability in Research","url":"https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/preregistering-qualitative-research/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2019","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Qualitative preregistration has already been proposed as a credibility and transparency intervention.","Preregistration can track flexibility and provide a check on subjectivity rather than requiring qualitative inquiry to become purely predictive.","Confirmability audits are an adjacent qualitative-research practice.","The source identifies tensions arising from flexibility, subjectivity, and qualitative postdiction."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"A Guide to Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI), Version 1.0","publisher":"Qualitative Data Repository, Syracuse University","url":"https://qdr.syr.edu/ati/guide-ati","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2017-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["ATI already links contestable qualitative claims to source excerpts, contextual notes, and underlying data where ethical and legal.","ATI operationalizes data access, production transparency, and analytic transparency while attempting to preserve diverse qualitative traditions.","The guide warns that source disclosure must respect intellectual-property and human-participant protections.","Claim-to-evidence mapping is established adjacent practice rather than a novel component."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Registered Reports","publisher":"AERA Open / SAGE Journals","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/page/ero/registered-reports","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["AERA Open is an identifiable journal adopter accepting registered reports using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods.","Its two-phase process reviews questions and methods before analysis and offers in-principle acceptance independent of result direction.","The policy expressly seeks to reduce publication bias, post-hoc adjustment, p-hacking, and HARKing while allowing labeled exploration."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Coded Private Information or Biospecimens Used in Research, Guidance (2018)","publisher":"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections","url":"https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/coded-private-information-or-biospecimens-used-research.html","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2018","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Secondary use of identifiable private information can constitute human-subjects research and may require IRB review and consent unless an exemption or waiver applies.","Institutions should designate a knowledgeable authority rather than allow investigators to determine independently whether coded-data research involves human subjects.","Agreements, repository procedures, or legal requirements that prevent researchers from obtaining identity keys can support non-identifiable secondary use."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Rationale and Guidelines for Empirical Adversarial Collaboration: A Thinking & Reasoning Initiative","publisher":"Thinking & Reasoning / Routledge; author-uploaded copy on ResearchGate","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273489133_Rationale_and_guidelines_for_empirical_adversarial_collaboration_A_Thinking_Reasoning_initiative","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2015","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A journal previously created an empirical-adversarial-collaboration manuscript category for researchers holding opposing explanations.","The established process includes a jointly agreed plan, editor review, an impartial facilitator or referee, monitoring of adherence, and arbitration of changes.","Structured comparison among rival explanations is established adjacent prior art, although this source describes collaboration rather than a scarce-prize multi-team reanalysis contest."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Research-integrity literature and a primary survey show that selective and detrimental research practices exist and matter, while qualitative-methods sources recognize subjectivity, postdiction, transparency, and contextual-access problems. However, none of the eight sources measures the proposal's specific pattern—nominally independent ethnographic teams strategically cherry-picking a common corpus while competing for scarce commissions—or its frequency or consequences. The general problem is externally visible; the exact proposed use case remains an inference.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"AERA Open is an identifiable journal adopter that expressly accepts qualitative registered reports to reduce publication and post-hoc bias. QDR and UK Data Service are identifiable steward infrastructures implementing qualitative transparency, controlled reuse, consent, disclosure, and documentation practices. These establish authority-capable actors and expressed needs for integrity and responsible reuse, but no source expresses demand for the complete competitive arena, scarce awards, labor caps, cross-submission collusion screens, or ranked portfolio selection.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Qualitative registered reports","similarity":"Pre-analysis review, frozen questions and methods, documented deviations, and result-independent publication directly address post-hoc adaptation and publication bias.","remaining_difference":"They govern one submission's process, not strategic interaction, equalized corpus access, resource escalation, collusion, sabotage, comparative ranking, or winner lock-in across teams.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"Qualitative preregistration and confirmability audit","similarity":"Tracks analytical flexibility, makes prior commitments observable, and provides a check on subjectivity while acknowledging qualitative postdiction.","remaining_difference":"It does not create or govern a scarce-prize arena and supplies no comparative evidence that reserved cases validly discriminate explanations.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Annotation for Transparent Inquiry","similarity":"Provides claim-to-source traceability, contextual analytic notes, ethical disclosure limits, and a repository-backed evidence supplement closely resembling the proposed evidence map.","remaining_difference":"ATI is author-controlled transparency infrastructure, not a common-corpus contest with leader audits, negative-case scoring, sanctions, or portfolio awards.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Empirical adversarial collaboration","similarity":"Opposing explanations are tested under a joint plan, editorial review, and impartial facilitation or refereeing.","remaining_difference":"It converts rivals into collaborators and does not rank multiple independent teams for scarce commissions, cap resources, screen collusion, or retain nonexclusive multiple winners.","source_ids":["S8"]},{"name":"Controlled qualitative-data repository review","similarity":"Operational review already covers consent, disclosure, access, documentation, formats, copyright, and provenance for qualitative reuse.","remaining_difference":"Repository review does not judge scientific validity or comparative explanatory adequacy.","source_ids":["S3","S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Conditional and testable: for genuinely comparable explanations of one bounded outcome, adding equal-access controls, preregistered mechanisms and scope conditions, common claim-to-evidence maps, permission-cleared reserved cases, multi-dimensional scoring, leader audit, and nonexclusive portfolio selection to existing registered-report, ATI, repository, and adversarial-collaboration practices will detect more planted cherry-picking and unsupported scope claims and improve negative-case visibility without materially reducing contextual adequacy, increasing status-cue sensitivity, or canonizing one explanation. No searched source establishes that combined effect.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Most components have credible operational analogues: qualitative preregistration, registered reports, ATI evidence links, controlled repository review, and facilitated adversarial collaboration. HHS guidance supplies a workable authority boundary for identifiable or coded records. The unverified integration risks are substantial: reserved cases may reward decontextualization, shared rubrics may impose false commensurability, off-book labor may defeat caps, anomaly screens may misclassify intellectual lineage, and participant protections may conflict with reproducibility. Synthetic execution is technically feasible; real-corpus workflow validity and safety are untested.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"If effective, the arena could improve the evidentiary quality and scope calibration of influential qualitative explanations, but the prevalence of the exact problem and downstream effect size are not established.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Journals and repositories visibly want preregistration, transparency, and responsible reuse, but no adopter has requested this full rivalry-governance package.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The package addresses cross-team conduct and winner lock-in omitted by registered reports, ATI, and adversarial collaboration; comparative advantage over lighter practices remains untested.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"No close match for the complete package was found, although nearly every major epistemic component has adjacent prior art. The distinctive residue is integration and comparative performance, not the individual mechanisms.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Secure access, preregistration, evidence maps, review, and audits are implementable with existing practices; reliable reserved-case design, labor accounting, and collusion screening remain difficult.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A journal can allocate commissions and a steward can control access, but institutions or IRBs—not competing researchers—must resolve human-subjects status and permissions. Multi-party governance increases coordination burden.","source_ids":["S3","S6","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate supplies a bounded synthetic protocol and measurable outcomes, but there is no direct trial, adopter commitment, problem-prevalence study, threshold validation, or bottom-up budget.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Secure access, consent checks, non-reidentification, scope limits, corrections, and nonexclusive awards could protect participants and dissenting interpretations; these benefits depend on independent authority and effective enforcement.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Templates and shared infrastructure can be reused, but contextual judging, permission review, reserved-case construction, reproduction, appeals, and participant-facing oversight are bespoke and labor intensive.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S7","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and run one synthetic comparison with an 18-organization fictional corpus, eight submissions, three comparator processes, status-cue permutation, secure workspaces, independent methods/context/privacy/advisory/audit/appeal roles, analysis, and reporting.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 1,500-3,500 combined specialist and project-management hours.","No real participant data or participant recruitment.","Existing institutional software can host the synthetic secure environment.","Resource-equivalent estimate includes donated academic labor at market-equivalent rates."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Create reusable governance documents, legal and ethics review, secure-environment configuration, corpus-ingestion and evidence-map tooling, reviewer training, audit procedures, appeals, and one authorized nonrestricted pilot.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One journal, one steward, and one sponsor.","Existing repository and institutional security systems are adapted rather than built anew.","Award purse and follow-up research funding are excluded from startup infrastructure but staff and honoraria are included.","No major incident remediation or custom high-assurance software development."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operate one complete real contest from eligibility review through awards, audit, appeals, artifact deposit, secure deletion, and post-contest review, excluding the scientific cost of the separately funded follow-up study.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Six to twelve teams and two synthesis commissions.","Substantial specialist reviewer and steward time is compensated.","The steward already lawfully holds and can permission the corpus.","No privacy breach, litigation, or misconduct investigation requiring extraordinary expense."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain staffing, secure access, documentation, reviewer pools, audits, appeals, corrections, challenger review, and one or two contest rounds per year.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Reuse of startup templates and infrastructure.","One institutional program rather than a field-wide platform.","Follow-up research grants and major remediation liabilities are excluded.","Review remains human-intensive because contextual adequacy cannot be safely automated."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"External sources support material research-integrity, selective-reporting, qualitative-transparency, and responsible-reuse problems, although they do not establish the candidate's exact multi-team prevalence.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"AERA Open, qualitative repositories, data stewards, and institutional human-subjects authorities are credible role analogues, but no identified organization has expressed intent or authority to operate the complete arena on a suitable corpus.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The combined arena can be compared against ordinary blinded peer review and a plural symposium on planted-failure detection, false referrals, negative-case visibility, scope calibration, contextual adequacy, status sensitivity, ranking stability, and effort.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A synthetic corpus and fictional submissions permit a finite, reversible, no-real-record test with explicit comparators and falsifiers.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step uses only invented records and issues no findings about real researchers or communities. Advancement to real data remains conditional on steward permission, institutional human-subjects determination, privacy review, and participant-protection governance.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The four bands are scoped resource-equivalent estimates grounded in the observable workflow, but no direct wage, vendor, infrastructure, award-size, or incident-remediation quotations were obtained.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Preregister and run the proposed synthetic exercise with an 18-organization fictional longitudinal corpus and eight engineered submissions. Randomly assign blinded reviewer panels to (A) the bounded arena, (B) ordinary blinded peer review, or (C) a noncompetitive plural symposium; repeat after permuting team names and institutional-status cues. Predefine success as at least 80% detection of planted cherry-picking/fabrication, no more than 10% false misconduct referrals, rank-order concordance of at least 0.80 after status permutation, and contextual-adequacy scores no worse than 0.30 standard deviations below the plural-symposium arm, while improving negative-case visibility and scope calibration over ordinary review. Falsify advancement if any threshold fails, reserved cases systematically reward decontextualized accounts, portfolio scoring changes arbitrarily with panel composition, protected material must be disclosed to reproduce judgments, or reviewer burden exceeds twice ordinary review without a compensating integrity gain. Use results only to decide whether to seek separate authorization for a nonrestricted institutional-data pilot.","blocking_evidence":["No direct estimate of how often common-corpus qualitative teams engage in the specified strategic behaviors.","No comparative test shows that the package outperforms registered reports, ATI, adversarial collaboration, ordinary peer review, or plural publication.","No evidence validates reserved-case diagnostics as measures of qualitative explanatory adequacy rather than prediction-like simplification.","No source establishes participant or source-community acceptance of competitive ranking and follow-up awards.","No live adopter has committed a suitable corpus, staff, commissions, or follow-up funding.","The false-positive rate and due-process performance of cross-submission collusion screens are unknown.","Off-book labor detectability and enforceability of resource caps are unknown.","Cost bands lack bottom-up quotations and omit uncertain incident, litigation, and follow-up-grant costs."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The bounded search found established qualitative preregistration, registered reports, claim-to-evidence annotation, controlled repository review, and empirical adversarial collaboration, but no direct source describing the complete scarce-prize, multi-team ethnographic reanalysis arena. This is only a search-bounded differentiation result. 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":true,"progress_targets":["Complete the preregistered three-arm synthetic comparison with identity/status permutation.","Meet the planted-failure detection, false-referral, ranking-stability, and contextual-noninferiority thresholds.","Demonstrate that reserved cases distinguish evidentiary weakness from legitimate contextual revision.","Produce a bottom-up resource estimate and document reviewer burden relative to ordinary peer review.","Obtain written interest from a journal, authorized steward, and independent ethics/privacy authority before any nonrestricted pilot.","Predefine rollback, correction, appeal, and participant-protection authority for any later real-data trial."],"reason":"Web evidence establishes the general integrity problem, credible component practices, and a bounded synthetic test, but cannot determine the composite arena's epistemic validity, comparative advantage, false-accusation rate, status robustness, cultural safety, or workflow burden. Those questions require controlled human evaluation and live testing, so further bounded web research cannot clear the remaining evidence gap."},"proposal_index":4}