{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__criminology_forensic","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"cpfe-production-signature-reference-gateway-001","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Production-Signature Reference Gateway for Digital-Evidence Triage","problem":"A forensic laboratory receives recurring digital files for which an examiner must determine whether artifacts are compatible with a defined class of producing devices or software. Even for supported file types and bounded source classes, each examiner may have to reconstruct reference examples, extraction steps, comparison criteria, and limitation language before technical review can begin. The repeated setup and interpretation burden can stall an otherwise permitted transformation from an intact questioned file to a reproducible, limitations-bearing compatibility packet.","actors":["Forensic laboratory intake coordinator","Digital forensic examiner","Laboratory technical reviewer","Laboratory quality manager","Investigating agency submitting the evidence","Prosecution and defense recipients of disclosed forensic work","Court or other authorized fact-finder"],"observable_state":"For eligible files, workflow timestamps and work records show repeated acquisition of the same reference exemplars, recreation of the same feature-extraction steps, or repeated resolution of the same reporting questions before a reviewer receives a comparison packet. Queue depth, examiner hands-on time, reroutes, and reviewer corrections can be observed separately from legal holds and downstream scheduling delays.","consequence":"Scarce examiner attention is consumed by recurring setup rather than case-specific interpretation; comparison packets may vary in provenance or limitation wording; and completed work may wait behind avoidable preparation while active-case, disclosure, and review obligations remain unchanged.","affected_objective":"Produce timely, reproducible, technically reviewable source-class compatibility assessments without changing evidentiary standards, disclosure duties, uncertainty reporting, or the authority of a qualified examiner.","intervention":"Create a governed Production-Signature Reference Gateway for a narrowly enumerated set of file formats and candidate producer classes. The reusable facilitator consists of a versioned known-source reference library, a prevalidated feature-extraction workflow, and a locked reporting template. An intake contract admits only intact authorized copies with required metadata and routes malformed, novel, mixed-source, adversarial, or legally restricted items to ordinary examination. For each admitted item, the gateway verifies hashes, extracts declared production-signature features, compares them with the validated reference panel, and returns a reproducible packet containing compatibility results, alternative explanations, uncertainty, tool versions, and an audit log. It may support triage or source-class compatibility only; it cannot individualize a device, infer culpability, or approve an evidentiary conclusion. A qualified examiner reviews and signs any case-facing conclusion. After every cycle, the workspace is cleared, reference and software integrity are checked, logs are sealed, and capacity returns to ready status. Activity, queueing, errors, reroutes, and reviewer corrections trigger refresh, suspension, or retirement.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform an eligible questioned digital file into a reproducible source-class compatibility packet with provenance, alternatives, uncertainty, and limitations; do not transform it into an individualized source or culpability finding."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier model","domain_realization":"The recurring barrier is reconstruction of known-source exemplars, extraction procedures, comparison rules, and review-ready limitation language for materially similar examinations."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"Only authorized evidence copies, enumerated formats, validated producer classes, unchanged scientific criteria, full auditability, and qualified-examiner review are permitted; mixed, novel, disputed, or unsupported items use the ordinary pathway."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"A versioned reference library, validated extraction workflow, and locked comparison/reporting template are retained between cases and reused without becoming part of any case output."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A published intake contract requires file hashes, provenance metadata, authorization, supported format, candidate-source scope, and an isolated working copy before processing."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"The gateway reports only supported source-class compatibility, incompatibility, or indeterminate status and reroutes cases whose artifacts do not satisfy the validated operating envelope."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity model","domain_realization":"Capacity is measured as technically accepted packets per validated gateway instance per unit time, alongside queue depth, examiner contact time, reroutes, reviewer corrections, and reset time."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"After each item, case data are removed from the isolated workspace, hashes and reference-library integrity are verified, software state is reset, logs are sealed, and the instance must pass a ready-state check."},{"archetype_element":"Saturation and interference monitoring","domain_realization":"A capacity view distinguishes excess eligible inflow from malware alerts, corrupt files, novel signatures, software drift, reference gaps, or rising reviewer corrections."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality check","domain_realization":"The gateway accelerates preparation of an assessment that a qualified examiner could already perform; it does not make unsupported attribution feasible or alter admissibility, disclosure, or decision authority."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable catalyst steward","domain_realization":"The laboratory quality manager controls versions, access, validation status, capacity limits, incident response, refresh decisions, and independent audit, while examiners retain conclusion authority."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Defines authorized inputs, supported source classes, required metadata, output guarantees, invariants, and exception routing so each handoff does not require renegotiation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the contract, unsupported or ill-formed files enter the gateway, consume capacity, and create discretionary hidden gatekeeping or invalid comparisons."},{"mechanism_slug":"prevalidated_transformation_template","role":"Carries forward a previously tested extraction, comparison, provenance, and limitation structure while locking fields that case users may not alter.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the template, each examiner must reconstruct the pathway and reporting logic, so the recurring activation burden remains."},{"mechanism_slug":"workflow_automation_or_macro","role":"Executes declared feature extraction and reference comparison, validates outputs, records versions, and routes failed checks as exceptions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without reusable execution, the reference resources remain available but repeated manual processing, transcription, and logging work continues to dominate each cycle."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Compares accepted packets per gateway cycle with the ordinary pathway while measuring correct class handling, false inclusions, false exclusions, indeterminate results, reroutes, corrections, and degradation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the assay, faster handling could be credited to easier case selection, relaxed standards, or added resources, and selectivity loss could remain hidden."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Displays ready instances, occupied instances, queue depth, cycle time, reset state, reroutes, and degradation signals to inform intake metering.","counterfactual_removal":"Without capacity visibility, additional files may be admitted into a saturated or degraded pathway and apparent utilization may conceal worsening waits."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Defines per-case workspace clearing, integrity verification, state reset, validation refresh, suspension, and retirement criteria.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration, residual case data, stale references, software drift, or cumulative faults can make nominally reusable capacity unsafe or inactive."},{"mechanism_slug":"inhibitor_and_poison_screen","role":"Screens incoming files and operating conditions for corrupt containers, unsupported transformations, malware indicators, missing provenance, reference conflicts, or other conditions that could corrupt the facilitator.","counterfactual_removal":"Without upstream screening, one incompatible item or operating condition could contaminate results, disable the gateway, or propagate an undetected systematic error."}],"causal_chain":["Eligible examinations repeatedly encounter the same reference-building, extraction, comparison, and reporting setup barrier.","A versioned reference gateway encodes that already-permitted pathway once and exposes a stable intake and output contract.","Eligibility and inhibitor checks admit only files inside the validated operating envelope and reroute exceptions to ordinary examination.","Reusable automation performs declared extraction and comparison steps while preserving hashes, versions, alternatives, uncertainty, and audit records.","A qualified examiner reviews the packet under the unchanged scientific and evidentiary standard.","The completed packet is released to technical review, while the gateway retains no authority over the case conclusion.","Workspace clearing, integrity checks, and software reset return the gateway to a verified ready state for another item.","Turnover, selectivity, queue, reroute, correction, and degradation measures determine whether inflow continues, capacity rests, or the gateway is suspended.","Repeated valid cycles would demonstrate barrier reduction through facilitator reuse; failure to reset, preserve selectivity, or avoid downstream backlog would end the pathway."],"baseline":"The credible baseline is the laboratory's ordinary examiner-led pathway for the same supported file types and source-class question: the examiner assembles or locates references, runs case-specific extraction and comparison steps, drafts provenance and limitations, and submits the result to the same technical-review standard. Comparison must hold case eligibility, examiner authorization, downstream review, and substantive acceptance criteria constant.","nearest_rivals":["A full bespoke digital-forensic examination for every item, which preserves contextual flexibility but reconstructs recurring setup work.","Additional examiner hours or staffing, which expands bulk capacity but does not create a reusable barrier-lowering cycle.","A generic end-to-end attribution classifier, which may automate classification but lacks the proposal's bounded source classes, explicit reference provenance, examiner-controlled conclusion, per-cycle regeneration, and selectivity accounting.","A static checklist or shared folder of exemplars, which supports consistency but does not provide an instrumented interface, validated turnover, exception routing, or verified reset cycle."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal is catalytic only if the same governed gateway completes multiple accepted file-to-packet cycles, returns to a verified ready state after each cycle, and reduces repeated setup relative to the ordinary pathway without changing eligibility, scientific standards, or examiner authority. Otherwise it is ordinary automation, reference sharing, or added capacity.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The laboratory technical leader and quality manager may jointly authorize a validation-only shadow probe; only a qualified examiner operating under existing laboratory policy may issue a case-facing forensic conclusion, and existing legal actors retain their usual admissibility and fact-finding authority.","authorized_first_step":"Authorize an isolated, reversible shadow comparison using laboratory-created known-source files and non-case training materials, with preregistered eligibility, measures, stop rules, access controls, and no release of gateway outputs into an investigation or proceeding.","excluded_actions":["Using the gateway on an active case before validation and separate authorization","Changing scientific acceptance criteria, disclosure duties, chain-of-custody requirements, or technical-review requirements","Inferring an individual device, author, offender, intent, or culpability from source-class compatibility","Ingesting evidence or reference materials without documented authority and provenance","Allowing automated output to bypass qualified-examiner review","Expanding supported formats or producer classes through an undocumented configuration change","Using eligibility or poison screening as a pretext to exclude disfavored submitters or conclusions"],"halt_rollback":"Immediately stop admission if integrity checks fail, unsupported artifacts appear, blind-test labels are mishandled, selectivity leaves the preregistered envelope, reviewer corrections indicate systematic error, case data persist after reset, or downstream review cannot absorb output. Quarantine all generated packets, preserve audit logs, restore the last validated software and reference image, and return all work to the ordinary examiner-led pathway; restoration requires documented root-cause correction and repeat validation."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A workflow audit shows that elapsed delay is primarily caused by legal holds, evidence-access restrictions, incomplete submissions, or downstream technical-review capacity rather than repeated reference and setup work; the gateway would then shift or enlarge the queue instead of lowering the rate-limiting barrier.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if sampled eligible examinations do not exhibit materially recurring reference, extraction, comparison, or reporting setup steps, or if those steps are not separable from case-specific expert judgment.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if a matched shadow probe does not reduce examiner hands-on or elapsed preparation time while maintaining the same correct-class, false-inclusion, false-exclusion, indeterminate, reroute, reviewer-correction, disclosure, and auditability conditions; it is also falsified if the facilitator cannot be reliably reset and reused.","risks":["Automation anchoring may bias the examiner toward the gateway's candidate classes.","A stale or unrepresentative reference library may produce confident but incomplete comparisons.","Adversarial or novel files may mimic, erase, or combine production signatures.","Residual case data or logs may create confidentiality, discovery, or cross-case contamination risks.","Eligibility rules may become a hidden access gate or encourage submitters to reshape questions to qualify.","High throughput may overload technical review, disclosure preparation, or defense examination.","A single steward, software instance, or reference custodian may become a capture point or common-mode failure.","Dashboard metrics may reward utilization or speed while obscuring indeterminate results and correction burden."]},"next_evidence_step":"Run a preregistered shadow probe on 30 blinded, laboratory-created files spanning supported producer classes, supported near-neighbors, and deliberately ineligible conditions; randomize order between the gateway and ordinary pathway, require the same examiner review standard, and record hands-on time, elapsed time, queueing, correct-class handling, false inclusions and exclusions, indeterminate results, reroutes, reviewer corrections, audit completeness, reset completion, and downstream review time before any operational use is considered.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not applicable: this is proposal 1, and no prior proposal or experiment candidate was consulted.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}