{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology:P4:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology","proposal_index":4,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific, falsifiable incremental claim: the combined governed arena should outperform ordinary blinded review and a plural symposium on planted-abuse detection, negative-case visibility, and scope calibration without materially reducing contextual adequacy or increasing status sensitivity."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"External evidence supports research-integrity, selective-reporting, qualitative-transparency, and responsible-reuse problems, while appropriately leaving the prevalence of the exact common-corpus rivalry pattern uncertain."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A qualitative or mixed-method journal allocating commissions, an authorized qualitative-data steward, and independent methods, privacy, ethics, and participant-advisory reviewers form a concrete authority-capable partner class; AERA Open, QDR, and UK Data Service provide credible role analogues even though none has committed to this package."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining questions concern comparative judging validity, false referrals, contextual adequacy, status robustness, reviewer burden, and institutional workflow fit. These require qualified journal, steward, contextual, privacy, advisory, audit, and appeal participants exercising realistic review roles and cannot be resolved through further public-source research alone."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step uses only invented records, fictional teams, planted failures, and permuted status cues; it accesses no real participant data, evaluates no active manuscript, issues no real misconduct finding, and conditions any later real-data trial on separate authorization."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The preregistered three-arm synthetic comparison is finite, reversible, comparator-based, and thresholded: it measures planted-failure detection, false referrals, status-permutation stability, contextual noninferiority, negative-case visibility, scope calibration, and reviewer burden, with explicit advancement and stopping rules."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"The verified gates contain no material NO: problem support, distinctiveness, bounded testing, and safety are YES. Adopter commitment and cost precision are uncertain, but the authorized synthetic test does not depend on real-corpus access, and cost uncertainty is not the sole rationale for partnership."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is an operationally specified synthetic experiment with defined corpus size, engineered submissions, comparator arms, role assignments, status permutation, metrics, thresholds, and falsification conditions—not an open-ended request for more research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A qualitative or mixed-method journal or research sponsor able to supply realistic editorial and reviewer workflows, paired with an authorized qualitative-data steward and independent methods, contextual, privacy/ethics, participant-advisory, audit, and appeal experts. Initial participation is limited to the fictional-corpus exercise and conveys no authority over real records or communities.","required_access":"Access to qualified reviewers and institutional role-holders for blinded assignment across the arena, ordinary-review, and plural-symposium arms; realistic review forms, time accounting, appeal procedures, and workflow feedback. No real participant records, active manuscripts, identity keys, or restricted contextual knowledge are required for the first test.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister and run the proposed comparison using an 18-organization fictional longitudinal corpus and eight engineered submissions. Randomly assign blinded panels to the bounded arena, ordinary blinded peer review, or a noncompetitive plural symposium, then repeat after permuting team names and institutional-status cues. Measure planted cherry-picking and fabrication detection, false misconduct referrals, ranking stability, negative-case visibility, scope calibration, contextual adequacy, audit reproducibility, appeal reversals, portfolio dependence, and reviewer time.","success_condition":"Advance only if the arena detects at least 80% of planted cherry-picking and fabrication, produces no more than 10% false misconduct referrals, achieves rank-order concordance of at least 0.80 after status permutation, keeps contextual-adequacy scores within 0.30 standard deviations of the plural-symposium arm, and improves negative-case visibility and scope calibration over ordinary review with a proportionate burden.","falsification_condition":"Do not advance if any numerical threshold fails; reserved cases systematically reward decontextualized accounts; portfolio results vary arbitrarily with panel composition; protected material would need disclosure; planted misconduct survives audit; legitimate contextual revision is repeatedly misclassified; or reviewer burden exceeds twice ordinary review without a compensating integrity gain.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner candidate because adjacent prior art establishes the components but not the combined arena's comparative effect. The decisive uncertainty is empirical and workflow-dependent, not answerable by another web search. A safe synthetic trial with realistic institutional participants can directly falsify the claimed advantage before any request for real-data authority, adopter commitment, or full deployment funding."}