{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__religious_studies_theology:P1:v0","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__religious_studies_theology","search_queries":["Ithaka S+R religious studies scholars research practices report librarians 2017","site:religiousstudiesproject.com ethics research religion community engagement guidelines","Society of American Archivists Protocols for Native American Archival Materials community consultation","Local Contexts TK Labels provenance community permissions official","official ethics guidelines research religion living communities religious studies researchers","Mukurtu CMS cultural protocols traditional knowledge official features","CARE Principles Indigenous Data Governance primary paper 2020","BLS librarians archivists curators museum workers pay 2025 occupational outlook","British Association for the Study of Religions ethical guidelines PDF research living religious communities","American Academy of Religion research ethics guidelines communities archives religion","Association of Internet Researchers ethical guidelines religious communities research consent","religious studies research community collaboration archive source context service university library"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Supporting the Changing Research Practices of Religious Studies Scholars","publisher":"Ithaka S+R","url":"https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/supporting-the-changing-research-practices-of-religious-studies-scholars/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2017-02-08","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A qualitative study based on 102 sampled interviews from a project involving 18 academic libraries documents diverse and difficult discovery, access, collection, and information-management work in religious studies.","Scholars researching religions beyond the West face particular source-access and institutional-support challenges.","The report identifies potential for substantially more collaboration between scholars and libraries and was designed to generate actionable research-support services."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Ethics Guidelines and Code of Practice","publisher":"British Association for the Study of Religions","url":"https://basr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/basr-ethics-guidelines-2026.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2026-01-14","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Religious-studies research, including literature-based work, can raise ethical issues requiring scrutiny.","Researchers should identify stakeholders, respect community expectations, negotiate power and gatekeeper relationships, secure appropriate agreements, protect sensitive data, and disclose consultant roles.","Institutional committees and funders require assurance that projects have received ethics scrutiny and conform to professional standards.","The guidance cautions that community authorization, confidentiality, consent, copyright, data protection, competence, and fair representation remain context-specific constraints."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Protocols for Native American Archival Materials","publisher":"Society of American Archivists","url":"https://www2.archivists.org/standards/protocols-for-native-american-archival-materials","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2018-08","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An endorsed archival standard calls for culturally responsive care and culturally appropriate service to communities.","It addresses access, use, ownership, relationship-building, mutual respect, and inclusion of Native perspectives in information professions.","It explicitly warns that every tribe, band, and community is unique and that practices must be interpreted jointly by each institution and community."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance","publisher":"Data Science Journal / Global Indigenous Data Alliance","url":"https://www.gida-global.org/s/dsj-1158_carroll.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2020-11-04","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The Indigenous-led CARE framework specifies Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics for data governance and reuse.","Indigenous nations and communities should determine governance protocols and participate in stewardship decisions for data held elsewhere.","The paper identifies respectful relationships, representation, participation, contextual restrictions, and item- or collection-specific notices as implementation needs.","It states that further research is needed to operationalize CARE through tools, policies, repositories, and institutional practices."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Traditional Knowledge/Biocultural Labels Usage and Style Guide","publisher":"Local Contexts","url":"https://localcontexts.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/TK-and-BC-Labels-Usage-and-Style-Guide.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2023-08-14","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Local Contexts already provides reusable labels for community-defined attribution, provenance, access, and use context.","Label descriptions are designed to be customized by Indigenous communities and translated into their languages.","The existing label system is close prior art for carrying contextual instructions forward with cultural materials, although it is not a case-level research-request gateway."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Understanding Communities and Cultural Protocols","publisher":"Mukurtu CMS, Center for Digital Scholarship and Curation at Washington State University","url":"https://docs.mukurtu.org/communities-cultural-protocols-categories/UnderstandingCommunitiesAndCulturalProtocols/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Mukurtu implements community-specific open and strict cultural protocols, protocol stewards, multiple community roles, and fine-grained access management.","It is established technical prior art for community-governed contextual and access rules around digital heritage.","Its documented role and protocol model demonstrates technical feasibility but also shows that the proposed gateway must not supersede repository or community access controls."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Guidelines for Supporting and Evaluating Public Scholarship in Religion","publisher":"American Academy of Religion","url":"https://aarweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AAR-Guidelines-for-Supporting-and-Evaluating-Public-Scholarship-in-Religion-Final.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2025-01-26","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The AAR Board calls on institutions to support community-engaged religious scholarship through training, grants, partnerships, organizational structures, and clear standards.","The guidance treats non-academic actors as audiences, participants, or co-producers of knowledge and recognizes relationship-building and institutional coordination as scholarly process.","It requires continued scholarly rigor while recognizing community needs, supporting institutional adopter plausibility without demonstrating demand for this exact gateway."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Archivists, Curators, and Museum Workers: Occupational Outlook Handbook","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/curators-museum-technicians-and-conservators.htm","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2025-08-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The 2024 median wage was $61,570 for archivists and $62,000 across these occupations in educational services.","Archivists set and administer access policies, organize and preserve records, and often provide reference services.","These wage figures provide a public labor-cost anchor; community-liaison compensation, specialist faculty time, benefits, overhead, and 2026 inflation still require assumptions."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The broader problem is visible: religious-studies scholars face heterogeneous discovery, access, and information-management burdens; professional guidance identifies recurring contextual, stakeholder, consent, gatekeeper, representation, and data-protection work; and archival standards show that inappropriate context or use can harm communities. However, no source measures the candidate's exact local indicators—duplicated contacts, dossier returns, elapsed source-plan time, or prevalence among already-accessible low-risk requests. The claimed recurring bottleneck therefore remains locally unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Identifiable adopters and authorizers exist: religious-studies departments and research-ethics committees can authorize a workflow pilot; academic libraries and archives can operate it while repositories and communities retain access authority. Ithaka calls for closer scholar-library collaboration, AAR calls for institutional support and community partnerships, and SAA endorses culturally appropriate archival service. These are expressed needs for adjacent support, not a commitment by a named institution to adopt or fund this exact gateway.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Protocols for Native American Archival Materials","similarity":"Defines culturally responsive archival service, relationship-building, community-specific interpretation, and access/use safeguards—the proposal's normative core.","remaining_difference":"It is guidance rather than a metered, rotating case-processing gateway with matched counterfactual evaluation, turnover metrics, and regeneration rules.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Local Contexts TK/BC Labels","similarity":"Provides reusable, community-customized provenance, attribution, access, and use context attached to cultural materials.","remaining_difference":"Labels convey item- or collection-level conditions; they do not assemble a source-use dossier per researcher request, manage a review queue, or test cycle-time and labor effects.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Mukurtu cultural protocols and steward roles","similarity":"Implements community-controlled protocols, differentiated access, multiple narratives, and designated stewardship roles in an operational platform.","remaining_difference":"Mukurtu governs digital-heritage content and access rather than preparing bounded research-use plans across repositories while leaving all access decisions elsewhere.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"CARE Principles and emerging Collection CARE Notices","similarity":"Requires authority to control, respectful relationships, responsibility, ethics, and contextual governance across data reuse and repository workflows.","remaining_difference":"CARE is a governance framework and notice mechanism, not the candidate's cross-case facilitator with eligibility, staffing, recovery, and comparative performance measurement.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Conventional religious-studies librarian collaboration and research-support services","similarity":"Existing libraries already provide discovery, collection, consultation, primary-source instruction, and specialist referral support.","remaining_difference":"The searched evidence does not show the complete proposed bundle: community-mandated liaison participation, a versioned context dossier, explicit reroutes, unchanged authority, compensated regeneration, and a turnover/selectivity assay.","source_ids":["S1","S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For eligible, already-accessible and non-restricted living-tradition sources, a standing gateway that combines a versioned intake contract and dossier, maintained specialist/community contact routes, explicit rerouting, capacity limits, compensated recovery, and independent audit will reduce total elapsed preparation time and duplicated researcher/specialist labor versus the usual decentralized route, without increasing contextual errors, misrepresentation, unauthorized disclosures, downstream review burden, or changing access and interpretive authority; the advantage must persist across successive service cycles after total labor and case mix are held constant.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The intervention is technically simple: secure intake, workflow assignment, versioned templates, audit logs, dashboards, and role-based controls are all implementable, and Local Contexts and Mukurtu demonstrate mature contextual-label and cultural-protocol components. Professional standards support the proposed boundaries and escalation. Workflow feasibility is less certain because community representation, refusal rights, liaison compensation, workload recovery, conflict management, confidentiality, and cross-repository authority must be negotiated locally. No source validates the proposed twelve-case allocation, dossier completeness rubric, facilitator regeneration, or performance under repeated cycles.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Avoided duplicated work and fewer harmful contextual mistakes could materially improve scholarship and participant/community protection, but the volume of eligible cases and current harm rate are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Professional bodies and research-support research express demand for collaboration, community partnership, ethical scrutiny, and culturally appropriate archival service, but no named institution has requested or committed to the exact gateway.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S7"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integrated queue, context dossier, reroutes, recovery cycle, and comparative assay could improve on static guidance and repository-specific tools; advantage over an enhanced librarian consultation service remains untested.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"No close match to the entire operating cycle was found, but most components are established in archival protocols, Local Contexts, Mukurtu, CARE, and ordinary research-support practice.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The necessary intake, templates, secure records, routing, role controls, audit logs, and capacity measures use conventional systems, with demonstrated adjacent implementations.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A department and archive can authorize a bounded internal pilot, but repository rules, ethics review, rights holders, and properly mandated community representatives retain non-delegable authority and must agree before cases enter.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"External evidence supports the surrounding need and safeguards, but the core incremental claim requires proprietary workflow data and live matched testing; no baseline prevalence, labor distribution, correction rate, or committed host is available.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"If governed correctly, the gateway could catch contextual, representation, consent, and access uncertainties before downstream use while routing high-risk cases away. It can also create new gatekeeping and centralization risks.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Templates and software scale, but trusted relationships, language expertise, community mandates, compensation, and case-specific judgment are scarce and tradition-specific; broad scaling risks flattening diversity or exhausting liaisons.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Retrospective baseline review followed by a twelve-case, one-semester matched pilot; protocol co-design; secure intake; compensation for independent audit and properly mandated community participation; measurement and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 250-500 total compensated hours across a pilot coordinator, librarian/archivist, tradition-area specialists, community liaisons, independent reviewers, and data support.","Existing institutional form, secure storage, and workflow tools are reused rather than custom-built.","Fully loaded labor is estimated from the BLS educational-services wage anchor, adjusted to 2026 and multiplied for benefits/overhead; specialist and liaison rates may be higher.","No travel, translation-intensive case, legal dispute, restricted-source adjudication, or custom software development is included."],"source_ids":["S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Co-design and governance agreements, privacy/security review, intake and dossier templates, role and conflict rules, accessibility, training, workflow configuration, initial contact-network compensation, and launch readiness at one department/archive.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Six to twelve months of fractional effort across a service steward, archivist/librarian, ethics/privacy staff, technical support, specialists, and compensated community partners.","Existing university identity, ticketing/form, document-management, and reporting infrastructure is configured.","The service does not acquire collections, digitize material, grant access, or build a new repository.","Startup includes contingency for consultation, translation, and independent review but not litigation or rights clearance."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"First full operating year at one institution with bounded intake, rotating review coverage, liaison honoraria, audits, template maintenance, incident handling, and outcome evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Roughly 0.75-2.0 combined FTE-equivalent across steward, librarian/archivist, administrative/data support, and rotating specialist time.","Community participation is compensated and refusal/recovery time is budgeted.","Case volume remains capped until cycle time, correction rate, downstream load, and representative burden are known.","Wide multilingual coverage, extensive travel, or high-risk consultation would move the launch above this band."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Sustained single-institution service: staffing, specialist and liaison compensation, training and succession, relationship maintenance, secure systems, audits, appeals, template refresh, and periodic evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Annual demand can be served by approximately 1-2 combined FTE-equivalent plus compensated part-time expertise.","Existing institutional infrastructure continues to host the workflow.","Compensation is not replaced with volunteer or uncompensated relational labor.","The estimate excludes expansion to many traditions, repositories, campuses, or languages; those could require 250K_TO_1M or more."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent research and current professional guidance substantiate difficult research-support work and consequential contextual, community, access, and representation obligations. The exact local prevalence remains a blocking measurement gap, but the underlying problem is externally visible.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Academic libraries, archives, religious-studies departments, and institutional ethics authorities are credible operators or authorizers; Ithaka, AAR, BASR, and SAA explicitly call for adjacent collaboration, support, scrutiny, and culturally appropriate service. No specific host commitment has been verified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim contrasts the complete gateway against the usual decentralized route and can be falsified by total-labor-adjusted time, quality, authority-boundary, burden, and repeated-cycle outcomes.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A twelve-case matched pilot with six gateway and six usual-route cases, preregistered eligibility, complete independent audit, successive-cycle checks, and explicit stop criteria is bounded and comparator-based.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The design correctly preserves repository and community authority and contains halt rules, but a live pilot cannot proceed safely until a specific institution secures repository approval, ethics/privacy review where applicable, properly bounded community mandates, compensation, confidentiality terms, and conflict/refusal procedures.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four ranges identify included work, deployment scale, exclusions, staffing assumptions, and a public wage anchor. Uncertain liaison, language, legal, and case-complexity costs are disclosed and prevent high confidence.","source_ids":["S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"At one willing department/archive, first audit 20-30 recent eligible inquiries to test the problem falsifier and estimate repeated contacts, elapsed preparation time, researcher hours, specialist minutes, corrections, and dominant delay causes. Proceed only if repeated context/provenance/referral work is material. Then preregister a voluntary twelve-case matched pilot: six randomly assigned eligible requests use the gateway and six use the existing decentralized route, with identical substantive standards and no restricted or authority-bearing cases. Independent blinded reviewers assess every output for completeness, plural interpretation, access/representation errors, inappropriate endorsement, disclosure, and unresolved questions; record total labor, elapsed time, contacts, reroutes, participant burden, downstream review time, successive-cycle performance, and post-recovery performance. Falsify the intervention if adjusted elapsed time or duplicated labor does not fall, gains disappear after total labor/case mix adjustment, any authority boundary is crossed, correction or misrepresentation outcomes worsen, liaison burden breaches agreed limits, or performance/selectivity fails to recover across cycles.","blocking_evidence":["No named institution, repository, ethics authority, or funder has committed to host or authorize the pilot.","No local baseline establishes the frequency of eligible requests or whether repeated context/provenance/referral work is the dominant delay.","No empirical comparison shows lower total labor or elapsed time versus an enhanced librarian consultation or usual decentralized route.","No validated common completeness and plural-representation rubric exists for comparing dossiers across traditions.","No community-specific evidence establishes who may represent which claims, under what mandate, compensation, confidentiality, refusal, and succession terms.","No live evidence shows that the facilitator preserves quality and recoverability over successive cycles rather than consuming hidden specialist or relational labor.","Institution-specific privacy, records-retention, copyright, repository, labor, accessibility, and ethics-review requirements remain unmapped.","Potential unequal access for poorly prepared researchers and potential flattening of internally diverse, multilingual, diasporic, or Indigenous traditions remain untested."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"This evaluation measured neither world novelty nor patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact. Bounded searches found adjacent standards, governance frameworks, products, and ordinary research-support practices, but cannot establish that no equivalent gateway exists in unpublished institutional workflows, other languages, commercial services, or unindexed community practice.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Secure a written host commitment identifying the departmental authorizer, repository authority, service steward, privacy/ethics reviewer, and funding source.","Complete a retrospective prevalence study showing that repeated context, provenance, trust, and referral work is a material bottleneck among otherwise eligible requests.","Co-design and document community mandates, compensation, confidentiality, refusal rights, conflict handling, workload limits, and succession before any community liaison participates.","Validate a cross-route completeness and harm-audit rubric without treating one representative or template as exhaustive of a tradition.","Preregister the twelve-case assignment, comparator, total-labor accounting, authority boundaries, participant protections, regeneration schedule, and quantitative and qualitative falsifiers.","Demonstrate in live cases that time or duplicated labor improves without worse corrections, misrepresentation, unauthorized disclosure, downstream burden, unequal access, or degradation across successive cycles."],"reason":"Bounded web research has verified the surrounding problem, credible institutional actors, adjacent prior art, technical plausibility, and a testable incremental claim. It cannot answer the decisive questions—local prevalence, comparative labor and cycle time, dossier quality, representative burden, authority preservation, and multi-cycle recovery—because they require proprietary workflow records, negotiated participation, and live testing. Under the required controller rule, that evidence dependency requires an empirical-research stop with repairable set to false."},"proposal_index":1}