{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__futurism_foresight","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"cp-fs-standing-expert-relay-002","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Standing Expert Relay for Cascading-Risk Assumptions","problem":"A multi-county emergency-management consortium must periodically turn bounded long-range uncertainty questions—such as how compound infrastructure disruptions might interact—into auditable ranges of expert judgment for scenario stress tests. For each question, staff must currently identify relevant disciplines, recruit participants, establish confidentiality and conflict terms, translate vocabulary, explain the planning context, and design an elicitation process anew. The required judgment is distributed across people and institutions, so the repeated search, trust, translation, and coordination burden can stall the transformation from an approved question to a usable judgment distribution.","actors":["Emergency-management planners who sponsor bounded uncertainty questions","Infrastructure, public-health, climate, logistics, and community specialists who contribute judgment","A neutral foresight-convener team that operates the reusable relay","Scenario teams that consume judgment distributions and dissent rationales","Ethics, privacy, procurement, and records officers who govern participation","The consortium steering committee that retains planning and policy authority"],"observable_state":"Candidate state to verify: approved uncertainty questions remain open while staff rebuild contact lists and participation terms; recruitment histories, nonresponse, conflicts, disciplinary coverage, coordinator hours, time to first elicitation round, panel attrition, and unresolved terminology are visible per question; consultation outputs vary between named opinions, workshop notes, and untraceable consensus statements; and later reviewers cannot consistently distinguish the distribution of judgments from the coordinator's synthesis.","consequence":"Scenario teams may proceed with undocumented internal assumptions, wait for an ad hoc consultation to form, or receive a summary that suppresses material disagreement. Adding more questions can consume the same limited recruitment and trust-building capacity, while hurried convening can overuse experts, expose sensitive views, or privilege the easiest participants to recruit.","affected_objective":"Produce timely, plural, traceable expert-judgment inputs for long-range cascading-risk scenarios while preserving dissent, participant consent, confidentiality, disciplinary breadth, and the steering committee's decision authority.","intervention":"Establish a Standing Expert Relay: a neutral, governed convener service that maintains reusable relationships, participation agreements, disciplinary and community-perspective coverage maps, conflict records, a secure elicitation protocol, and controlled-feedback procedures. An eligible planning question invokes the relay through a published interface. The relay checks whether the question is bounded and genuinely judgment-informable, selects a conflict-screened and workload-compatible panel, translates the question into shared terms, administers anonymized rounds, returns controlled summaries for reconsideration, and releases a distribution of judgments with rationales, dissent, uncertainty, and coverage limitations. It does not supply the judgments or force consensus. After release, it closes access, compensates participants, records burden and incidents, refreshes relationship and conflict data, rests or rotates overused contributors, tests the protocol, and returns to a ready state for another question.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform one authorized, bounded strategic-uncertainty question into an auditable distribution of expert judgments, rationales, disagreements, uncertainty statements, and coverage limitations suitable for scenario construction but not for automatic policy choice."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier","domain_realization":"Each question repeatedly incurs expert search, recruitment, trust establishment, confidentiality negotiation, disciplinary translation, conflict screening, and elicitation setup."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"The Standing Expert Relay is an enduring convener institution that reuses maintained relationships, governance, translation capability, and elicitation infrastructure across questions. Expert judgment and participant time are necessary cofactors, not the facilitator itself."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A question dossier must state the planning decision it informs, time horizon, bounded uncertainty, terms requiring translation, relevant perspectives, permitted evidence, confidentiality class, desired output, sponsor, and deadline."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"The relay may elicit and aggregate judgment where measurement alone cannot resolve the bounded question. It may not replace empirical investigation, democratic value decisions, statutory authority, emergency command, community consent, or the steering committee's policy judgment."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"Questions dominated by unresolved values, active personnel disputes, discoverable empirical facts, advocacy objectives, immediate operational decisions, or unmanageable confidentiality conflicts are rejected or rerouted. Outputs must retain outlying judgments and coverage gaps rather than manufacturing agreement."},{"archetype_element":"Cofactor map","domain_realization":"Operation requires compensated expert attention, sponsor-supplied context, secure communications, accessible participation formats, translation support, records guidance, and administrative capacity. Their sufficiency is checked before a cycle begins and reported separately from catalytic reuse."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity model","domain_realization":"Capacity is tracked as completed eligible question cycles per active relay team and period, together with coordinator hours, time to assemble a compatible panel, participant burden, round completion, attrition, exception handling, recovery time, and readiness for the next cycle."},{"archetype_element":"Saturation and interference monitor","domain_realization":"A capacity view exposes concurrent questions, coordinator occupancy, panel invitations, participant burden, disciplinary gaps, response latency, attrition, conflict hits, confidentiality exceptions, downstream scenario-team backlog, and recovery status."},{"archetype_element":"Inhibitor and poison controls","domain_realization":"Conflicts of interest, sponsor attempts to steer findings, strategic withholding, ambiguous terminology, repeated uncompensated requests, identity leakage, dominant institutional representation, and stale relationship records are screened before or during admission."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"At cycle close, the relay separates participants from case access, pays agreed compensation, records opt-outs and burden, updates conflicts and availability, repairs trust after incidents, rotates or rests contributors, tests anonymization and feedback procedures, and reauthorizes or retires facilitator capacity."},{"archetype_element":"Byproduct and side-pathway guardrail","domain_realization":"The relay monitors false consensus, suppressed dissent, sponsor capture, token representation, disclosure risk, expert exhaustion, professional retaliation, strategic gaming, and the conversion of elicited judgment into unauthorized prediction or policy."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality","domain_realization":"The relay accelerates access to distributed judgment but does not make an uncertain event more predictable, make a scenario feasible, resolve competing public values, or change who may authorize action."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable catalyst steward","domain_realization":"A named relay lead owns fair access, neutrality, conflicts, capacity, participant welfare, regeneration, incident handling, succession, and auditability. An independent ethics or records officer receives confidentiality and retaliation concerns."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"reusable_broker_or_convener_service","role":"Maintains trusted relationships, translation capability, participation pathways, and neutral coordination so these assets can be reused across successive uncertainty questions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the standing broker, each sponsor would again search for experts, establish trust, negotiate terms, and bridge disciplinary language from the beginning."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_cofactor_system","role":"Separates the reusable relay from the expert time, sponsor context, compensation, secure infrastructure, accessibility, and records support required to activate it, and gates each cycle on their sufficiency.","counterfactual_removal":"Without explicit cofactor checks, the relay could appear available while lacking adequate perspectives, participant capacity, context, security, or administrative support."},{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Defines admissible questions, sponsor obligations, confidentiality conditions, output guarantees, protected dissent, records treatment, and decision-authority boundaries.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a stable contract, question framing and participation terms would be renegotiated during each cycle, recreating the coordination barrier inside the facilitator."},{"mechanism_slug":"inhibitor_and_poison_screen","role":"Screens questions, sponsors, prospective participants, and operating conditions for conflicts, coercive framing, confidentiality incompatibility, excessive burden, and representation failures before elicitation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without upstream screening, capture or disclosure failures could corrupt an output and damage the relational capital required for later cycles."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Makes live relay and participant capacity visible through question load, recruitment activity, response latency, burden, attrition, conflicts, coverage gaps, recovery state, and downstream demand.","counterfactual_removal":"Without joint capacity visibility, the consortium could interpret expert exhaustion as lack of interest, oversubscribe trusted participants, or move questions into an already saturated relay."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Restores the relay through case closeout, compensation, access revocation, relationship maintenance, contributor rotation or rest, conflict updates, protocol testing, reauthorization, and retirement when trust or integrity cannot be recovered.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration, nominally reusable relationships and procedures could degrade through fatigue, stale permissions, unresolved incidents, or cumulative sponsor capture."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Compares successive relay cycles with ad hoc consultation on setup burden, coordinator effort, completed outputs, perspective coverage, dissent preservation, attrition, disclosure events, facilitator recovery, and downstream usability.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a predeclared assay, quicker outputs could be credited to reuse even if they resulted from narrower panels, coerced participation, weaker confidentiality, or omitted disagreement."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Tests the relay on a small set of non-live planning questions with fixed participation, safety, attribution, and halt criteria before any operational reliance.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a contained comparison, failures of neutrality, representativeness, confidentiality, or regeneration could first appear in a consequential live planning process."}],"causal_chain":["A planning sponsor submits a bounded uncertainty question through the published interface rather than beginning informal expert recruitment.","The relay screens the question for pathway legitimacy and checks sponsor context, expert availability, compensation, security, accessibility, disciplinary coverage, and conflicts.","The reusable convener draws on maintained relationships and shared participation terms, reducing the need to rebuild search, trust, translation, and governance for that case.","A compatible panel supplies the case-specific judgment cofactor through anonymized rounds; controlled feedback permits reconsideration without requiring consensus.","The relay releases a traceable distribution containing central judgments, outliers, rationales, uncertainty, participation coverage, and limitations, while policy authority remains unchanged.","Participant access is closed, compensation and incident handling are completed, and case-specific information is separated from the reusable service.","The relay refreshes relationship, availability, conflict, security, and protocol state, rotates or rests burdened participants, and returns to readiness for the next eligible question.","Capacity, turnover, selectivity, participant welfare, and downstream use are reviewed together; the relay is paused or retired if neutrality, confidentiality, coverage, or recoverability falls outside the operating envelope."],"baseline":"The credible baseline is ad hoc expert consultation for each question: consortium staff search their existing networks, invite named specialists, negotiate participation and confidentiality case by case, conduct interviews or workshops, and write an unstandardized synthesis. A comparison must hold the question class, sponsor context, participant compensation, substantive evidence, desired perspective coverage, staff availability, security rules, and downstream review authority constant. Measures include setup time, coordinator touch time, recruitment contacts, response and attrition patterns, perspective coverage, conflicts, dissent preservation, traceability, disclosure incidents, participant burden, output rework, and downstream reviewer assessment.","nearest_rivals":["Hire permanent subject-matter experts: this adds internal judgment capacity but cannot by itself supply the changing external and cross-disciplinary perspectives required by each question, and it lacks a reusable neutral brokerage cycle.","Commission a separate consultancy or one-off expert panel for every question: this can produce an output but rebuilds contracting, recruitment, trust, translation, and governance for each case.","Run an open stakeholder workshop: this supports deliberation but does not provide the same anonymous, iterative, conflict-screened transformation and may expose participants to dominance or retaliation.","Use a forecasting model or historical dataset: this is appropriate where the question is empirically estimable, but it does not transform distributed, irreducible human judgment through a reusable relationship facilitator.","Create an internal contact directory: this lowers search effort but does not actively screen compatibility, administer elicitation, preserve dissent, regenerate relationships, or return a governed facilitator to readiness.","Train planners to become futures generalists: this builds internal capability but is independently different from repeatedly connecting bounded questions to distributed specialist judgment."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's contrastive claim is conditional: a standing, regenerating convener may reduce repeated search, trust, translation, and setup burdens across successive eligible questions while preserving participant welfare, perspective coverage, dissent, confidentiality, and decision boundaries. The catalytic interpretation fails if any apparent gain instead comes from using fewer perspectives, omitting rounds, coercing repeat participation, adding coordinator labor in proportion to questions, weakening safeguards, or treating a fixed panel's opinions as reusable substance.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The consortium foresight director may authorize and halt a non-decisional probe. The relay lead may administer eligibility, recruitment, conflicts, workload limits, elicitation, aggregation, regeneration, and rerouting within that protocol. Participants control their consent and may withdraw. The steering committee alone retains authority over scenarios, preparedness priorities, expenditures, public statements, and policy.","authorized_first_step":"Conduct a shadow probe using four archived, non-live cascading-risk questions selected and matched before facilitator assignment. Process two through successive cycles of the same test relay and two through the documented ad hoc baseline. Cap participation at twelve compensated volunteers, use only redacted context, prevent outputs from entering planning records, and have independent reviewers score predeclared traceability, uncertainty, dissent, coverage, and usability criteria without knowing the pathway.","excluded_actions":["Using probe judgments in an operational scenario, emergency directive, procurement, funding, public forecast, or policy decision","Recruiting participants without informed terms, compensation arrangements, refusal rights, and records notice","Revealing individual judgments, participation, conflicts, contact details, or withdrawal decisions outside the authorized team","Pressuring participants to converge or removing outliers merely to produce consensus","Treating the panel as representative of a public, community, profession, or discipline beyond the documented coverage","Allowing sponsors, funders, or the relay to alter responses or suppress unfavorable rationales","Expanding the panel, questions, data access, deployment, or downstream use beyond the authorized probe"],"halt_rollback":"Immediately stop the probe on an identity or confidential-data disclosure, retaliation concern, undisclosed material conflict, sponsor interference, unconsented reuse, participant burden beyond the agreed cap, inability to reconstruct aggregation, systematic suppression of dissent, or breach of the precommitted output envelope. Revoke case access, quarantine all syntheses, honor withdrawal and deletion obligations consistent with governing records rules, compensate completed participation, return future consultations to the ad hoc baseline, and require documented remediation and fresh authorization before another relay cycle."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A process audit shows that expert recruitment, trust, translation, and elicitation setup are not the rate-limiting burdens; questions stall because sponsors have not specified the decision, contest the underlying values, lack authority to act, or refuse to acknowledge inconvenient judgments. A relay would then accelerate consultation into an unresolved governance conflict.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if eligible questions are too rare or heterogeneous for relationship and protocol reuse, the required expertise changes so completely that maintained ties provide no repeated advantage, ad hoc panels form without material setup burden, or distributed expert judgment is not an appropriate input for the questions being submitted.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if matched relay cycles do not lower the targeted setup or coordination burden; coordinator or participant labor grows proportionally without reusable savings; later cycles show deteriorating recruitment, trust, coverage, dissent preservation, or recovery; the relay produces narrower or less traceable outputs than the baseline; confidentiality or neutrality cannot be maintained; or the service cannot return to a verified ready state after closeout.","risks":["A stable network may become intellectually homogeneous and recycle the same assumptions across questions.","Repeated invitations may exhaust trusted experts or create implicit pressure to participate.","Anonymity may fail in small specialties or through recognizable writing and reasoning patterns.","Sponsors may frame questions to obtain support for a preferred scenario or policy.","Controlled feedback may create conformity even when formal consensus is not required.","Maintained relationships may privilege well-connected institutions and exclude community or practitioner knowledge.","Conflict screening may be used pretextually to remove inconvenient participants.","The relay may become a gatekeeper controlling whose judgment reaches planners.","Compensation, secure infrastructure, accessibility, translation, or records work may be hidden as depleted cofactors.","Participants may strategically exaggerate or moderate judgments based on perceived downstream consequences.","A concise distribution may be misread as a forecast, probability estimate, or representative public view.","Scenario teams may become overloaded with elicitation products they lack capacity to interpret." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Before invitations are issued, freeze the four questions, matching logic, relay and baseline procedures, participant-burden cap, compensation, conflict criteria, confidentiality model, perspective-coverage target, reviewer rubric, and pass, halt, recovery, and retirement conditions. Record setup elapsed time, coordinator touch time, recruitment contacts, cofactor sufficiency, response latency, attrition, conflicts, identity-risk events, coverage, judgment changes between rounds, dissent retention, traceability, rework, participant-reported burden, willingness to receive another invitation, and time required to restore relay readiness. Compare pathways and inspect the relay's second cycle separately for evidence of reusable advantage or early degradation; do not generalize beyond the bounded question class and test conditions.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This proposal is materially distinct from proposal 1. Proposal 1 transforms collected weak-signal dossiers into standardized implication cards by repeatedly invoking an informational kernel composed of an interface, template, validation automation, and bounded operational review; its dominant barrier is per-case evidentiary and interpretive reconstruction after signal intake. Proposal 2 instead transforms an authorized uncertainty question into an anonymized distribution of external and cross-disciplinary judgments by reusing a governed institution's relationships, trust, translation capability, and elicitation pathway; its dominant barrier is repeated expert search, recruitment, consent, confidentiality, conflict screening, and convening. The inputs, outputs, facilitator, actors, failure modes, regeneration work, and causal path differ. The Standing Expert Relay can be adopted without the Signal-to-Implication Kernel, does not process signal dossiers, and is not an extension or implementation detail of proposal 1.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}