{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"brg_sa_plural_liaison_mandate_v0","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Plural Community-Liaison Mandate Arena","problem":"A municipal resettlement office has three compensated liaison seats through which organizations can place issues on consultation agendas, obtain translation support, and communicate with officials. Several associations claiming to serve the same heterogeneous migrant-origin community pursue these scarce mandates. They can improve their position by inflating membership, demanding exclusive endorsements, suppressing internal disagreement, policing who counts as an authentic member, intimidating rival organizers, or informally rotating seats among established associations. Selecting the oldest, largest, or most visible association can therefore turn mobilization capacity into official gatekeeper status without establishing that the winner can communicate disagreement accurately or remain answerable to residents.","actors":["Applicant community associations","Residents who belong to multiple associations","Residents unaffiliated with any applicant","Minority language, religious, age, neighborhood, and disability constituencies within the service population","Municipal resettlement office","Independent consultation-method reviewers","Interpreters and accessibility staff","Municipal privacy and conflicts officer","Independent appeal and misconduct reviewer"],"observable_state":"The problem is present when applications, endorsement records, campaign expenditures, meeting minutes, withdrawal patterns, shared fiscal relationships, complaints, and prior appointment histories show overlapping or unverifiable membership claims, coerced exclusivity, suppression of recorded dissent, reciprocal endorsements, coordinated withdrawals, stable seat rotation, disparagement of rivals, or persistent concentration of official access. The immediate trigger is that qualified requests exceed the three compensated liaison seats and each organization can strategically alter its rivals’ prospects.","consequence":"The official channel can select organizations best able to manufacture visible unity or disable rivals rather than those able to transmit residents’ varied concerns and return intelligible information. A temporary seat can then harden into control of translation, agendas, official contacts, and future eligibility while dissenting or unaffiliated residents are treated as culturally inauthentic or effectively invisible.","affected_objective":"Maintain a plural, accountable, and contestable channel between municipal decision-makers and heterogeneous residents without allowing competition for recognition to manufacture cultural homogeneity or displace individual civic voice.","intervention":"Pilot a twelve-month bounded arena for three compensated liaison mandates. Before applicants are known, the municipality and a temporary resident design panel freeze a rulebook stating that the purpose is accurate two-way communication, not certification of cultural authenticity. Eligibility requires transparent governance, financial and conflict disclosure, a usable grievance process, privacy safeguards, and acceptance that no organization may bind or exclusively represent an individual. Qualified applicants receive the same application length, presentation time, interpretation allowance, clarification channel, and permitted outreach period. They complete standardized consultation exercises requiring them to collect conflicting views, preserve minority statements, explain a municipal proposal accessibly, respond to a grievance, and return a decision summary. Published criteria assess communication fidelity, accessibility, internal due process, privacy, demonstrated reach across documented service-access gaps, and the ability to report disagreement without inventing consensus; raw membership size and claims of authenticity are not scoring criteria. Independent reviewers audit supporting records and selected exercise outputs. The three mandates are chosen as a portfolio whose members are individually qualified and collectively cover nonredundant communication channels. Direct multilingual public comment, individual meetings, and resident petitions remain outside the contest. A predeclared portion of each public stipend is retained until required translations, public records, unresolved-message logs, and handover materials are delivered. Uniform cross-cycle screens may refer suspicious endorsement swaps, withdrawals, zero-scoring blocs, or seat rotations for independent inquiry but never establish guilt. Published graduated sanctions apply to verified coercion, intimidation, doxxing, fabricated endorsements, retaliation, collusion, or concealment of dissent. Seats expire after twelve months, may be challenged after a documented service failure or resident petition threshold, and confer no preference in the next cycle. A post-term review compares actual communication fidelity, access, complaints, concentration, and handover performance with the arena’s purpose.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Rivalry purpose statement","domain_realization":"Use comparison among associations to identify accountable two-way liaison capability while explicitly excluding cultural-authenticity certification from the contest’s purpose."},{"archetype_element":"Scarce prize or selection constraint","domain_realization":"Three twelve-month compensated liaison seats, associated agenda access, and a finite translation-support allocation."},{"archetype_element":"Competitor eligibility boundary","domain_realization":"Associations must disclose governance, finances, conflicts, privacy practices, grievance procedures, and existing official relationships and must accept that residents can participate without them."},{"archetype_element":"Contest arena boundary","domain_realization":"Applicants may submit standardized evidence and conduct logged, voluntary outreach; they may not coerce endorsements, demand exclusivity, expose membership data, intimidate critics, define individual authenticity, fabricate consensus, or coordinate nominal competition."},{"archetype_element":"Performance metric and scoring basis","domain_realization":"Scoring combines verified communication fidelity, accessibility, due process, privacy, coverage of documented access gaps, grievance handling, and accurate representation of disagreement rather than membership totals or cultural-status claims."},{"archetype_element":"Fair process and due process layer","domain_realization":"Rules and weights are frozen before applications, shared questions receive shared answers, conflicts are disclosed, written selection reasons are issued, and factual, procedural, and misconduct findings have independent appeal paths."},{"archetype_element":"Anti-sabotage and anti-collusion guardrail","domain_realization":"A published foul schedule covers coercion, retaliation, doxxing, fabricated endorsements, disparagement through knowingly false claims, reciprocal withdrawal, and seat rotation; statistical or relational patterns only initiate inquiry."},{"archetype_element":"Externality and spillover boundary","domain_realization":"Unaffiliated residents retain direct channels, privacy breaches and intimidation are monitored, and retained public funds secure translation, message return, record handover, and remediation obligations."},{"archetype_element":"Escalation and arms-race damper","domain_realization":"Equal application space, presentation time, interpretation support, and outreach periods plus campaign-expense disclosure constrain spending, endorsement, and visibility escalation."},{"archetype_element":"Winner power and lock-in review","domain_realization":"Mandates expire, official contact lists and public liaison records must transfer, direct civic channels remain noncontestable, and incumbents receive neither territorial exclusivity nor an eligibility advantage."},{"archetype_element":"Learning and recalibration loop","domain_realization":"The municipality reviews realized access, message accuracy, disagreement reporting, complaints, concentration, and transition performance and may revise, replace, or retire the arena."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"contest_rulebook","role":"Freezes the liaison purpose, eligibility, permitted outreach, prohibited conduct, scoring, tie-breaks, conflicts, and appeals before applicant identities and strategies are known.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the rulebook, officials could redefine representation, authenticity, or acceptable campaigning after seeing applicants and selectively excuse favored organizations."},{"mechanism_slug":"tender_or_rfp_process","role":"Creates a published solicitation, common submission process, independent evaluation record, applicant debrief, and contestable appointment decision.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the structured process, scarce mandates could be assigned through visibility, personal relationships, or private negotiation while retaining only the appearance of community choice."},{"mechanism_slug":"multiple_award_or_portfolio_selection","role":"Selects three individually qualified, complementary liaison channels rather than awarding sole representative status or mechanically taking the three largest membership claims.","counterfactual_removal":"Without portfolio selection, appointments could duplicate the same social network and leave documented language, neighborhood, age, or accessibility gaps without a reachable channel."},{"mechanism_slug":"spending_cap_or_resource_cap","role":"Equalizes application, presentation, interpretation, clarification, and outreach resources and requires disclosure of outside campaign support.","counterfactual_removal":"Without resource constraints, established associations could convert staff, donor, venue, and publicity advantages into official legitimacy through escalating expenditure."},{"mechanism_slug":"sabotage_or_foul_penalty_schedule","role":"Attaches predeclared, graduated consequences to verified coercion, intimidation, doxxing, retaliation, fabricated endorsements, concealed dissent, and collusive withdrawal.","counterfactual_removal":"Without credible penalties, disabling a rival or manufacturing visible unity could remain a profitable route to a liaison seat whenever the conduct is detected but carries no appointment consequence."},{"mechanism_slug":"anti_collusion_monitoring","role":"Pools fixed indicators across cycles to identify possible endorsement swaps, coordinated withdrawals, reciprocal scoring, cover applications, and stable seat rotation for independent investigation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without cross-round monitoring, established associations could divide mandates while each individual appointment cycle continued to look competitive."},{"mechanism_slug":"externality_bond_or_liability_rule","role":"Retains a predeclared portion of the publicly funded stipend until required translations, message-return records, privacy remediation, and handover materials are verified.","counterfactual_removal":"Without secured completion resources, a departing or suspended liaison could leave residents and municipal staff to finance unfinished translation, notification, or records recovery."},{"mechanism_slug":"challenger_access_window","role":"Allows a qualified challenger to seek a bounded review after documented service failure or a valid resident petition and mandates complete reopening at term end.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an operative challenge and expiration path, control of contacts, translation, agendas, and official familiarity could make a temporary appointee practically permanent."},{"mechanism_slug":"post_contest_impact_review","role":"Compares realized message fidelity, accessibility, complaints, uncovered constituencies, concentration, and handover with the contest’s stated communication purpose.","counterfactual_removal":"Without ex-post review, a rubric that rewards polished exercises but produces poor real-world representation could be repeated and defended by its original scores."}],"causal_chain":["Three compensated mandates remain scarce, preserving comparative pressure among eligible associations.","The purpose statement removes cultural authenticity and authority over individuals from the arena while retaining competition over demonstrated liaison capability.","Eligibility rules establish governance, privacy, grievance, and transparency floors before comparative scoring begins.","Equal resources and bounded outreach reduce the advantage available from expenditure escalation, exclusive endorsements, and incumbent visibility.","Standardized exercises expose whether applicants can communicate policy, retain minority views, handle grievances, and report disagreement without manufacturing consensus.","Audited multi-criterion scoring makes accountable communication and accessibility more reliable routes to appointment than inflated membership or identity policing.","Portfolio selection preserves several nonredundant channels, while direct resident access prevents winners from monopolizing civic voice.","Monitoring, independent inquiry, secured handover duties, and graduated sanctions constrain sabotage, collusion, intimidation, and burden shifting.","Expiration and challenger access prevent accumulated official familiarity and contact control from becoming permanent authority.","Post-term evidence determines whether the arena should be recalibrated, replaced by a noncompetitive representation method, or retired."],"baseline":"Municipal staff appoint the oldest, largest, most visible, or most administratively responsive associations as community representatives, often through discretionary renewal. Public comment technically remains open, but translation, agenda access, and routine communication concentrate around appointees. Membership claims, internal dissent, rival interference, cumulative concentration, handover readiness, and the accuracy with which organizations return official information are not evaluated through one common, contestable process.","nearest_rivals":["A stratified resident mini-public selected by civic lottery: it can represent individuals without rewarding organizational rivalry and may be preferable when demographic breadth and deliberation matter more than durable association-based communication.","Permanent open multilingual consultation with no representative designation: it avoids gatekeeper creation entirely and may suffice if officials can process individual input and sustain outreach directly.","A federation formed through negotiation among associations: it can make cooperation and shared governance central, but risks transferring bargaining power to established organizations and suppressing unaffiliated voices.","A qualified lottery among associations: it can reduce favoritism, arms-race expenditure, and metric gaming but does not comparatively test communication fidelity, accessibility, grievance handling, or complementary coverage above the eligibility floor.","Municipal staff-led outreach using interpreters and community workers: it preserves direct public responsibility and may outperform a contest if staff can reach residents without intermediary organizations."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal’s contrast is conditional: when associations strategically compete for scarce official liaison mandates, governing the rivalry may make accurate, accessible, dissent-preserving communication a more dependable route to appointment while preventing temporary recognition from becoming cultural or civic gatekeeper authority. If a mini-public, direct multilingual consultation, staff outreach, negotiated federation, or qualified lottery provides legitimate communication without organization-level rivalry, the bounded arena is not justified.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The municipality may allocate its liaison seats, stipends, translation resources, meeting access, and administrative duties. It may not determine authentic cultural membership or authorize an association to bind residents. Each resident retains authority over affiliation, privacy, expression, direct participation, and whether any association may speak on that resident’s behalf.","authorized_first_step":"Run a tabletop evaluation using fictional associations, synthetic membership summaries, invented consultation exercises, and planted cases of disagreement suppression, accessibility failure, coerced endorsement, innocent overlap, and collusive rotation. No real association is scored and no liaison appointment is affected.","excluded_actions":["Designating any organization as the authentic or exclusive voice of a culture","Requiring residents to join, endorse, or communicate through an applicant","Disclosing real membership, immigration, religious, disability, or complaint information in the contest","Allowing collective endorsement to override individual speech, privacy, refusal, or withdrawal","Reducing direct multilingual public access because liaison seats exist","Treating an anomaly screen as proof of collusion or misconduct","Changing eligibility or scoring after applicant identities are known","Giving winners ownership of municipal contact lists, cultural categories, neighborhoods, or future seats","Penalizing criticism, dissent, dual membership, or unaffiliated participation"],"halt_rollback":"Stop before live use if resident reviewers reject organization-level rivalry, synthetic scoring depends materially on cultural-status judgments, reviewers cannot distinguish disagreement from poor performance, privacy-preserving verification is infeasible, or direct civic channels cannot be protected. Preserve existing public-access routes, make no adverse finding about any organization, and use temporary direct outreach, a mini-public, or a qualified lottery while redesigning or retiring the arena."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would show that organizational competition itself intensifies identity boundaries and suppresses dissent even under bounded rules, that consultation quality depends chiefly on direct resident sampling rather than association performance, or that discretionary staff outreach already reaches unaffiliated and minority residents without gatekeeper concentration.","problem_falsifier":"The problem pattern is falsified if liaison opportunities are not scarce, associations cannot strategically affect one another’s appointment prospects, no consequential access or authority follows from appointment, or legitimate representation requires direct individual selection rather than competition among organizations.","intervention_falsifier":"Do not proceed if identity-permuted synthetic applications receive materially different scores, polished governance documents dominate demonstrated communication, planted coercion or false consensus goes undetected, innocent overlapping membership produces punitive collusion findings, portfolio scoring can rationalize any preferred slate, or the process reduces unaffiliated residents’ effective access. Suspend a live pilot if verified intimidation, privacy breaches, message distortion, uncovered access gaps, concentration, or complaints move adversely while formal compliance remains high.","risks":["Formal competition may harden fluid identities and encourage associations to exaggerate cultural boundaries.","The eligibility floor may favor incorporated, well-resourced organizations over informal networks.","Portfolio complementarity may become an opaque vehicle for discretionary identity balancing.","Verification of reach may pressure residents to disclose sensitive affiliations.","A temporary resident design panel may reproduce the same representation problem it is asked to govern.","Resource caps may not neutralize incumbents’ accumulated relationships, venues, or name recognition.","Collusion screens may mistake legitimate coalition-building or shared fiscal sponsorship for misconduct.","A stipend holdback may impair small organizations’ ability to perform required work.","Standardized exercises may reward professional presentation rather than trust or situated knowledge.","Frequent challenges may destabilize communication and discourage investment in long-term relationships.","Multiple appointees may issue inconsistent messages or shift responsibility among themselves.","Officials may rely on the liaison portfolio as a substitute for direct engagement despite formal safeguards."]},"next_evidence_step":"Construct 10–12 synthetic association applications and consultation records, including a large exclusive incumbent, a small accessible network, overlapping memberships, a fabricated consensus, an innocent coalition, coordinated withdrawals, and complementary communication channels. Have separate resident, accessibility, consultation-method, privacy, conflicts, and appeal roles apply the frozen rules twice with names and status cues permuted. Compare the bounded arena with a qualified lottery and a synthetic stratified mini-public on planted-failure detection, false misconduct referrals, selection stability, portfolio coverage, preservation of minority statements, appeal reversals, reviewer time, and reliance on authenticity judgments. Use the exercise only to decide whether any separately authorized live pilot is warranted.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 governed research teams competing for prospective field-site placements and participant access; its intervention bounded recruitment, liaison burden, methodological scoring, and temporary research access. Proposal 2 governed repositories competing for custody of an existing ethnographic collection; its intervention tested preservation, cultural-access execution, recovery, exportability, and archival lock-in. This proposal instead governs civic associations competing for compensated municipal liaison mandates and agenda access. Its intervention tests accountable two-way communication, protection of disagreement, accessibility, internal due process, and plural channel coverage while keeping individual civic voice outside the contest. Its causal path addresses manufactured consensus, identity policing, organizational sabotage, and representative gatekeeper capture rather than participant recruitment burdens or archival portability. It can be adopted by a consultation office without changing research placements, participant recruitment, repository selection, or record custody.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}