{"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-identification-comparison-broker-002","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Cross-Jurisdiction Forensic Identification Comparison Broker","problem":"A medical examiner or missing-person investigator may have a plausible unknown-decedent–missing-person candidate pair and a legally available comparison method, yet formal comparison cannot begin until actors in different jurisdictions locate the correct custodians, reconcile identifiers, determine authority, identify usable records or specimens, and translate laboratory submission requirements. Reconstructing those relationships and handoffs for every pair creates a recurring activation burden distinct from the scientific comparison itself.","actors":["Medical examiner or coroner office","Missing-person investigator","Forensic identification coordinator","DNA, forensic anthropology, odontology, or fingerprint laboratory","Evidence and records custodians","Submitting and receiving jurisdictions","Family liaison or other authorized representative","Privacy, legal, and laboratory quality officers"],"observable_state":"For candidate pairs within the proposed scope, case records can show repeated attempts to locate custodians, incompatible identifiers or forms, returned submissions, unresolved authorization questions, duplicate outreach, or elapsed time between candidate nomination and receipt of a complete comparison-ready packet. These states can be distinguished from unavailable specimens, scientific infeasibility, and laboratory testing queues.","consequence":"A scientifically possible and legally permitted comparison may remain uninitiated; investigative effort is repeatedly spent rebuilding the same institutional connections; sensitive information may be transferred through inconsistent channels; and laboratories may receive incomplete or unauthorized submissions that require return or rework.","affected_objective":"Enable lawful, privacy-preserving, technically complete initiation of cross-jurisdiction identification comparisons without changing scientific match criteria, compelling participation, or transferring investigative and identification authority to an intermediary.","intervention":"Establish a neutral Cross-Jurisdiction Forensic Identification Comparison Broker that maintains reusable relationships, verified custodian contacts, jurisdiction-specific authorization maps, laboratory submission contracts, and a versioned comparison-readiness template. The broker accepts a narrowly scoped candidate-pair referral, verifies that the proposed comparison is feasible and permitted, identifies the authorized custodians and receiving laboratory, translates identifiers and requirements, and assembles a comparison-ready coordination packet. It does not access more identifying information than required, contact families without jurisdictional authorization, compel release or testing, select the scientific conclusion, or declare an identification. Ineligible, disputed, scientifically unsupported, conflicted, or legally uncertain referrals return to the ordinary pathway. After handoff, the broker closes the workspace, reconciles access and disclosure logs, updates contact or rule changes, performs relationship-maintenance tasks, and returns to a ready state for another referral. Intake is metered against broker attention and downstream laboratory capacity.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform an authorized candidate-pair referral into a complete comparison-ready coordination packet accepted for scientific processing by the appropriate custodian and laboratory; the output is not a match finding or identification."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier model","domain_realization":"The repeated barrier is cross-jurisdiction search, trust, terminology translation, identifier reconciliation, authorization checking, and handoff preparation rather than absence of a valid comparison method."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"The broker serves only enumerated comparison types for which participating authorities, records or specimens, and laboratories permit the handoff; scientific, privacy, consent, disclosure, and chain-of-custody safeguards remain unchanged."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"A standing neutral service retains verified relationships, contact routes, authorization maps, translation knowledge, and submission contracts that can be reused across referrals."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A published referral contract requires candidate identifiers, nominating authority, proposed comparison type, known custodians, urgency basis, permitted data fields, and a minimum readiness record."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"Only referrals with a plausible supported comparison, identifiable authority, compatible custodians, and a lawful minimum-data route proceed; ambiguity or conflict produces an explicit reroute rather than informal workaround."},{"archetype_element":"Cofactor or complement map","domain_realization":"Current custodian authority, usable specimens or records, laboratory acceptance, secure communication infrastructure, and any required collection funding enable the broker but are not treated as reusable brokerage capacity."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity model","domain_realization":"Capacity is measured as laboratory-accepted coordination packets per broker cycle together with contact attempts, hands-on time, queue depth, returned packets, exception time, relationship-maintenance time, and downstream laboratory load."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"After handoff or reroute, the service closes the referral workspace, verifies deletion or retention status, reconciles access logs, records unresolved obligations, refreshes changed contacts and rules, and rotates or rests human staff before readmission."},{"archetype_element":"Saturation and interference monitoring","domain_realization":"The service distinguishes excessive referral inflow from stale contacts, jurisdictional conflict, missing authority, unavailable specimens, staff fatigue, secure-channel failure, and downstream laboratory saturation."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality check","domain_realization":"The broker accelerates coordination for a comparison that authorized actors could already arrange; it does not create legal authority, scientific comparability, a usable specimen, laboratory capacity, or an identification conclusion."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable catalyst steward","domain_realization":"A jointly governed service lead owns access fairness, conflict disclosure, workload limits, contact verification, privacy incidents, succession, audit access, and suspension decisions while participating jurisdictions retain substantive authority."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"reusable_broker_or_convener_service","role":"Maintains trusted institutional relationships, translation capability, and verified routes so each candidate pair does not rebuild them from zero.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the standing broker, each originating office must rediscover custodians, requirements, and trusted contacts for every cross-jurisdiction referral."},{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Defines the minimum referral inputs, permitted disclosures, required authorizations, laboratory-ready output, invariants, versions, and exception routes.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a stable contract, each handoff becomes a negotiation and incomplete or over-disclosing packets reach custodians and laboratories."},{"mechanism_slug":"fast_track_with_eligibility_rules","role":"Routes supported, authorized, low-ambiguity comparison requests through the broker while returning disputed, novel, or high-risk matters to full jurisdiction-specific handling.","counterfactual_removal":"Without explicit eligibility and rerouting, the broker either becomes saturated with unsuitable referrals or informally weakens safeguards to keep cases moving."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_cofactor_system","role":"Maps and verifies the authority, specimens or records, laboratory acceptance, secure channels, and staff availability required for brokerage to produce a valid handoff.","counterfactual_removal":"Without cofactor checks, the service may appear active while referrals stall because a required authority, specimen, laboratory slot, or secure transfer capability is absent."},{"mechanism_slug":"inhibitor_and_poison_screen","role":"Screens for conflicting identifiers, disputed authority, incompatible retention rules, undisclosed interests, unsafe channels, duplicate referrals, or unsupported comparison types before broker resources are committed.","counterfactual_removal":"Without upstream screening, conflicts or unauthorized information can enter the service, corrupt trust relationships, consume capacity, or produce invalid handoffs."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Shows broker availability, queue depth, cycle time, exception burden, staff recovery state, stale-contact incidents, and receiving-laboratory capacity.","counterfactual_removal":"Without capacity visibility, referrals may be admitted into a saturated human service or accelerated into a laboratory queue that cannot absorb them."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Requires workspace closure, access-log reconciliation, relationship maintenance, contact and rule refresh, staff rotation, and suspension or replacement when integrity cannot be restored.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration, stale contacts, unresolved disclosure obligations, accumulated conflicts, and staff exhaustion progressively degrade the supposedly reusable service."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Compares accepted coordination cycles with ordinary routing while counting inappropriate admissions, correct reroutes, returned packets, unauthorized disclosure attempts, staff burden, and downstream consequences.","counterfactual_removal":"Without joint turnover and selectivity measurement, apparent acceleration could result from accepting only easy referrals, bypassing safeguards, or shifting work to custodians and laboratories."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Tests the brokerage pathway on simulated or separately authorized closed materials under precommitted pass, halt, and rollback rules before any live referral.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded counterfactual probe, coordination failures, gatekeeping, privacy leaks, and hidden workload transfers would first be discovered in live identification work."}],"causal_chain":["A supported candidate-pair referral encounters recurring search, trust, authorization, translation, and handoff burdens before scientific comparison can start.","The standing broker reuses maintained relationships, verified contacts, authorization maps, and submission contracts instead of reconstructing them for each pair.","An eligibility and interference screen separates permitted comparison-ready candidates from disputed, unsupported, conflicted, or incomplete referrals.","The broker verifies required cofactors and assembles the minimum authorized information into the receiving laboratory's declared interface.","Authorized custodians and the receiving laboratory review and accept, reject, or request correction of the coordination packet under their unchanged rules.","Acceptance releases the referral into scientific comparison while all match and identification judgments remain with existing qualified authorities.","The broker closes the workspace, reconciles disclosures and logs, refreshes changed institutional knowledge, and restores human capacity.","Turnover, reroutes, returns, privacy exceptions, staff load, and downstream laboratory queues determine whether intake continues, slows, or stops.","Multiple accepted handoffs followed by verified regeneration would constitute catalytic reuse; dependence on expanded authority, depleted staff, or shifted laboratory backlog would not."],"baseline":"The baseline is ordinary jurisdiction-led coordination: the nominating investigator or medical examiner independently locates each external custodian and laboratory, determines authority and submission requirements, reconciles identifiers, transfers permitted records, corrects returned materials, and monitors progress. Scientific comparison standards, participating jurisdictions, available specimens, receiving laboratories, and case eligibility must be held constant.","nearest_rivals":["A centralized missing-person or unidentified-person database that can surface candidate pairs but does not perform the authorized cross-jurisdiction transformation into a laboratory-ready handoff.","Additional coordinators hired separately by each agency, which add local capacity but do not necessarily reuse neutral relationships and translation infrastructure across institutions.","Bilateral memoranda of understanding and contact directories, which reduce some search costs but do not provide a cycling facilitator with live eligibility checks, packet assembly, capacity management, regeneration, and incident response.","General case-management software, which can record tasks and messages but does not itself maintain trust, reconcile authority, translate laboratory interfaces, or steward conflicts."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal is catalytic only if a bounded standing broker reuses maintained institutional capital across multiple independently authorized referrals, releases accepted packets, regenerates its relational and operational readiness, and preserves scientific and jurisdictional authority. If progress instead depends on more staff per case, compulsory data sharing, relaxed authorization, or additional laboratory capacity, the intervention is not this catalytic pathway.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"Participating medical examiner or coroner offices, missing-person units, laboratories, and their privacy or legal authorities must jointly authorize the service scope. Each source custodian controls disclosure, each laboratory controls acceptance and testing, and the legally designated authority retains identification and family-notification decisions.","authorized_first_step":"The joint governance group may authorize a tabletop shadow probe using synthetic referrals and separately approved closed training materials, named staff acting in their existing roles, a prototype contact and authorization map, and no communication with families or action on live investigations.","excluded_actions":["Opening or redirecting a live investigation without the responsible jurisdiction's authorization","Compelling a custodian, laboratory, family member, or jurisdiction to participate","Contacting a family or collecting a reference sample without the designated authority and required consent process","Declaring, ranking, or publicly communicating an identification conclusion","Changing scientific comparison thresholds, laboratory acceptance criteria, chain-of-custody rules, or disclosure duties","Transferring identifying information beyond the documented minimum necessary scope","Using the broker's access position to favor a jurisdiction, laboratory, vendor, or investigative theory","Treating absent specimens, prohibited disclosure, or unavailable laboratory capacity as coordination friction that the broker may bypass"],"halt_rollback":"Stop new referrals upon an unauthorized disclosure, unresolved authority conflict, incorrect custodian routing, repeated packet rejection, staff conflict or exhaustion, stale rule discovery, or downstream saturation beyond the agreed envelope. Quarantine affected packets, preserve audit records, notify the designated authorities, revoke broker access where necessary, and return referrals to ordinary jurisdiction-led coordination. Restart requires documented remediation, refreshed contacts and rules, an access review, and repeat validation."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A bounded workflow audit shows that candidate comparisons chiefly fail because no usable specimen or record exists, disclosure is prohibited, the comparison lacks scientific value, or receiving laboratories lack testing capacity; brokerage would then neither lower the true barrier nor create a permissible endpoint.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if eligible cross-jurisdiction referrals do not repeatedly incur material custodian search, trust, authorization-translation, identifier-reconciliation, or submission-rework burdens, or if those burdens cannot be separated from case-specific legal and scientific judgment.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if matched exercises do not produce more complete or faster-to-accept packets under unchanged authority and privacy constraints, if inappropriate admissions or disclosure errors increase, if work is merely shifted to custodians or laboratories, or if relationship and staff capacity cannot be restored between cycles.","risks":["The broker may become an unaccountable gatekeeper for which referrals receive attention.","Concentrated access to sensitive identity and family information may magnify privacy or security incidents.","Incorrect identifier reconciliation may connect unrelated people or direct the wrong records into a comparison.","Broker participation may anchor investigators on a candidate and narrow consideration of alternatives.","Jurisdictional differences may be flattened into an invalid common rule.","Eligibility rules may disadvantage offices with fewer preparation resources or less established relationships.","Human brokers may burn out, lose neutrality, or become a single point of failure.","Accelerated coordination may overload laboratories, family liaisons, or downstream review.","Outdated contacts, authorization maps, or submission requirements may produce confidently misrouted packets.","Broker metrics may reward accepted handoffs while hiding inappropriate referrals, rejected packets, or externalized labor."]},"next_evidence_step":"Run a preregistered randomized crossover tabletop with 16 synthetic candidate-pair referrals covering routine, incomplete, conflicted, scientifically unsupported, privacy-restricted, and downstream-saturated conditions; have participating staff route matched referrals through the prototype broker and ordinary pathway, then compare hands-on and elapsed preparation time, correct custodian selection, authorization accuracy, minimum-data compliance, packet completeness, appropriate reroutes, returned packets, unauthorized-disclosure attempts, broker workload, downstream workload, and successful ready-state restoration.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity is independent of proposal 1. Proposal 1 addressed repeated technical reconstruction in digital production-signature analysis through a versioned computational reference gateway that transforms an eligible file into an examiner-reviewed compatibility packet. Proposal 2 addresses cross-jurisdiction activation failure before human-identification testing begins and uses a neutral relational broker to transform an authorized candidate-pair referral into a laboratory-ready coordination packet. It requires neither production-signature analysis nor proposal 1's reference library, extraction workflow, or digital-evidence output, and either proposal can be adopted without the other.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}