{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__religious_studies_theology:P2:v0","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__religious_studies_theology","search_queries":["systematic theology doctrinal ontology knowledge graph proposition relationships research","digital theology knowledge graph doctrines entailment tool","theology peer review journal reviewer guidelines doctrinal implications scope","Logos Bible Software Theology Guide systematic theology topics official","site:ats.edu standards theological schools scholarship research technology 2020 pdf","theology journal peer reviewer guidelines review manuscript official systematic theology","ontology Christian doctrine theology semantic web research paper","\"Systematic Theology\" ontology knowledge graph","COPE AI tools peer review confidentiality guidance official","publishers generative AI peer review confidential manuscripts policy official 2025","BLS philosophy religion teachers postsecondary wage 2025","W3C SKOS ontology knowledge organization standard official","theology knowledge graph Christian doctrine ontology \"knowledge graph\"","\"theological ontology\" software systematic theology ontology","\"Lexham Systematic Theology Ontology\"","religious knowledge graph theology ontology research"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Introduction: Systematic Theology","publisher":"Oxford University Press","url":"https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34351/chapter/291419003","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2009-09-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Systematic theology is materially and formally contested, making tradition, method, and scope explicit requirements for any computational representation.","A single supposedly neutral doctrinal graph risks encoding disputed judgments about the content, task, and structure of systematic theology."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Theology: Journal Information, Author Guidelines, and Editorial Policies","publisher":"SAGE Publications","url":"https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/theology/journal202005","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An identifiable journal accepts systematic-theology scholarship and uses anonymous peer review in which reviewers recommend publication, revision, resubmission, or rejection.","The journal identifies an editor and editorial board who are plausible authorizers for a voluntary venue-level study, although the page expresses no demand for doctrinal consequence tracing."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Theology Guide","publisher":"Logos Bible Software","url":"https://www.logos.com/product/182947/theology-guide","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"2024-10-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A commercial first-party product already offers an ontology of 234 systematic-theology topics, related passages, related topics, recommended reading, and links across systematic theologies.","Topic navigation, view comparison, and relationship discovery are established product capabilities adjacent to the proposed service."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Search for Theological Topics Using the Lexham Survey of Theology","publisher":"Logos Help Center","url":"https://support.logos.com/hc/en-us/articles/360020335111-Search-for-Theological-Topics-Using-the-Lexham-Survey-of-Theology","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The Lexham Systematic Theology Ontology groups more than 200 topics and annotates spans in hundreds of systematic theologies.","Existing users can conduct precise ontology-bounded searches, while the documented search remains term-oriented rather than a claim-to-consequence assay."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"About the Bible Knowledge Graph","publisher":"Christian Classics Ethereal Library","url":"https://bibleknowledgegraph.org/about","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A live adjacent project provides linked semantic data about the Bible and theology for semantic search.","Search, entity, and statistics APIs demonstrate the practicality of exposing religious-domain graph data through reusable services."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2009-08-18","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["SKOS is a stable W3C Recommendation for machine-readable knowledge-organization systems and can be combined with OWL and queried using SPARQL.","SKOS's open-world semantics mean missing graph statements cannot be treated as proof that no doctrinal consequence exists; stricter integrity rules must be application-specific."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Detecting doctrinal flattening in AI generated responses","publisher":"Springer Nature","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-026-01051-0","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2026-03-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A primary study constructed a knowledge base of 576 atomic claims from authoritative sources across eleven Christian traditions and eight doctrinal loci.","The study found high precision but weak recall, denominational flattening, and occasional contradictions, empirically supporting the proposed guardrails against scope collapse and omitted minority positions.","Structured doctrinal evaluation is technically possible, but the study did not evaluate manuscript consequence tracing, peer-review time, multi-cycle regeneration, or journal adoption."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Wiley Peer Review Confidentiality Policy","publisher":"Wiley","url":"https://authors.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/review-confidentiality-policy.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Peer-review manuscripts and reviewer communications must remain confidential.","Uploading manuscripts or portions of them to external generative-AI systems can violate confidentiality, privacy, and copyright, requiring an approved local or contractually protected architecture for any live pilot."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"The sources establish that systematic theology is internally contested, that systematic-theology manuscripts undergo consequential peer review, and that computational systems can omit or flatten doctrinal distinctions. They do not measure the candidate's specific alleged problem: repeated reconstruction of doctrinal dependency chains, consequences first found late in review, duplicated reviewer labor, or resulting rework. The problem is plausible but its prevalence and materiality remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"A named theology journal editor and editorial board are identifiable venue-level authorizers, and Logos's deployed theology tools indicate real use of structured topic discovery. No source expresses demand for a claim-card-to-consequence-dossier service, willingness to supply confidential drafts, funding intent, or readiness to pilot it. Identifiability is stronger than stakeholder pull.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Logos Theology Guide","similarity":"Uses a systematic-theology ontology to expose related topics, passages, reading, and multiple theological views.","remaining_difference":"It accepts topics rather than scoped manuscript propositions and does not document dependency-type traversal, consequence dossiers, blind accuracy assays, exception routing, regeneration, or journal-workflow integration.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Lexham Systematic Theology Ontology search","similarity":"Provides a curated topic structure and ontology-bounded search across hundreds of systematic theologies.","remaining_difference":"It retrieves annotated textual spans using queries; it does not infer or test candidate entailments and tensions from an author's proposition or measure reviewer labor and missed dependencies.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Bible Knowledge Graph","similarity":"Provides linked semantic data about biblical and theological entities through reusable search and entity APIs.","remaining_difference":"Its public description targets semantic search and entity lookup, not tradition-and-period-scoped doctrinal consequence tracing or editorial review.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Owen doctrinal knowledge-base evaluation","similarity":"Builds atomic doctrinal claims across traditions and uses precision, recall, contradiction, and overgeneralization checks to evaluate computational output.","remaining_difference":"It evaluates generic AI answers, not author-specified manuscript claims, dependency paths, journal review cycle time, curator regeneration, or crossover comparison with ordinary peer review.","source_ids":["S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For one predeclared tradition, corpus, and historical scope, a versioned proposition graph plus bounded rules and specialist exception review will reduce labor-adjusted elapsed time from manuscript claim to independently acceptable consequence dossier versus ordinary peer review, across repeated cases, without increasing material false paths, missed dependencies, anachronisms, confidentiality incidents, authority leakage, or downstream revision labor; measured selectivity must recover after logged corrections and retesting. This claim fails if gains are explained by narrower/easier claims, extra total expert labor, weaker standards, static topic retrieval, or automated doctrinal verdicts.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Existing theology ontologies, semantic APIs, a W3C representation standard, and a 576-claim multi-tradition research knowledge base make a bounded prototype technically credible. The workflow remains labor-intensive because dependency semantics, historical scope, minority positions, gold-standard review, and module correction require expert judgment. SKOS alone is too weak for closed-world integrity or proof of absence. Live manuscripts also require explicit authorization, confidentiality controls, retention limits, copyright review, and a non-generative or approved private processing environment. A voluntary pilot with ordinary-review fallback is operationally possible, but performance, selectivity, workload, and regeneration are untested.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":2,"rationale":"Avoiding late doctrinal rework could help authors and reviewers, but no direct source establishes frequency, delay, labor burden, or consequential harm in the target workflow.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Plausible authorizers and users exist, but no editor, workshop, funder, curator, author, or reviewer expresses demand or willingness to participate.","source_ids":["S2","S3"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Claim-level scoped consequence prompts and multi-cycle selectivity testing could improve on topic navigation and semantic search, but the advantage over combining Logos with expert review has not been measured.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The full claim-card, dependency-path, exception-lane, regeneration, and crossover-assay package was not found, although most technical ingredients and close theological ontologies already exist.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Graph representation, semantic querying, versioning, APIs, and structured doctrinal evaluation are established; the principal uncertainty is knowledge curation and defensible relation semantics rather than basic software feasibility.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"An editor can plausibly authorize a voluntary study within a journal workflow, while authors, reviewers, and rights holders must consent to manuscript processing; no willing venue is identified.","source_ids":["S2","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Metrics and a bounded comparator are specifiable, but baseline logs, revision histories, gold-standard dependencies, participant consent, and partner access are absent and require fieldwork.","source_ids":["S2","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The service can remain advisory, use ordinary peer review as the fallback, withdraw dossiers, and deactivate modules; confidentiality breaches or authority leakage would still be difficult to reverse fully.","source_ids":["S2","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Software traversal is scalable, but each tradition, school, period, dependency type, and source corpus requires expert curation, adjudication, testing, and continuing maintenance; contested domains limit cross-module reuse.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One authorized 12-claim matched/crossover study, including protocol and consent materials, ordinary-route comparison, independent dossier assessment, specialist time, labor logging, and analysis; excludes building a production platform.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Twelve consenting claim sections come from one corpus and historical scope.","A minimal prototype can use an existing graph database and manual claim-card intake.","Two or three specialists contribute approximately 80-160 total hours.","The venue provides manuscripts, project coordination, and secure storage in kind."],"source_ids":["S2","S6","S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Curate and validate one tradition-and-period module, implement the claim-card contract and bounded traversal, build a secure prototype, create audit logs and deactivation controls, and complete initial scholarly validation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The module contains roughly 500-1,500 propositions and explicitly typed relations.","Existing RDF/OWL/SKOS and graph tooling is reused.","No external generative-AI service receives manuscript text.","The estimate includes part-time scholarly curation, engineering, security review, and project management but not institution-wide integration."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch a journal- or workshop-ready service with secure identity and manuscript handling, curator and specialist coverage, monitoring, appeal and incident procedures, documentation, accessibility, integration, and independent validation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains limited to one or a few closely related modules.","The system must satisfy publisher confidentiality and rights requirements.","At least two specialists provide redundancy and exception coverage.","Independent review tests historical scope, minority-position representation, and recovery after recalibration."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain a limited live service: scholarly curation and source refresh, specialist exceptions, secure hosting, monitoring, incident response, regression testing, module reauthorization, and periodic selectivity audits.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Volume is capped to one venue or a small consortium rather than an open public service.","One lead curator and specialist reviewers are part-time.","Major new traditions or periods are separately funded startup work.","Hosting is minor relative to expert labor and governance."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"NO","reason":"No direct evidence verifies repeated doctrinal dependency reconstruction, late discovery rates, duplicated labor, or material rework in systematic-theology manuscripts.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Theology identifies an editor, editorial board, systematic-theology scope, and peer-review workflow, establishing a credible class and concrete example of venue-level authorizer. This does not establish interest or commitment.","source_ids":["S2"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim specifies one module, ordinary-review comparators, labor-adjusted timing, independent dossier acceptance, false paths, omissions, anachronism, authority leakage, and post-recalibration recovery.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 12-claim, single-module, consenting, matched/crossover study can be capped in duration, records, access, and rollback, with precommitted pass and kill criteria.","source_ids":["S2","S7","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Advisory outputs and ordinary-review fallback bound doctrinal authority, but no participating venue, approved secure architecture, manuscript-rights determination, retention agreement, or independent minority-position review is yet in place.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Scopes and labor drivers are explicit, but the bands are bottom-up resource estimates without vendor quotes, venue-specific security requirements, salary calibration, or measured curation rates.","source_ids":["S2","S6","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Secure one journal or workshop partner and, before exposing manuscripts, freeze one tradition-and-period module, its claim-card contract, relation vocabulary, secure-processing design, consent and retention terms, randomization, and pass/pause/kill criteria. Enroll 12 consenting draft claim sections within the same declared corpus; randomize six to service-first and six to ordinary-review-first, then perform a limited crossover. Hold claim complexity, source access, substantive standards, and total human labor constant. Blind at least two independent specialists to route and have them score dossier usefulness, material false paths, missed dependencies later found by ordinary review, anachronisms, erased minority positions, unresolved disagreements, and authority leakage. Record elapsed time, author/reviewer/specialist minutes, exception load, downstream revision time, confidentiality incidents, and total curation labor. After one scheduled correction cycle, reprocess a fixed test set to measure recovery. Falsify the intervention if labor-adjusted time is not lower, if apparent gains disappear after case-mix adjustment, if false or missed paths increase materially, if specialist/curator labor merely shifts the bottleneck, if standards or authority boundaries weaken, or if selectivity fails to recover after recalibration.","blocking_evidence":["No externally measured prevalence or severity of late doctrinal-consequence discovery in systematic-theology review.","No journal, workshop, curator, funder, or author cohort has expressed demand or agreed to participate.","No validated gold-standard set of scoped doctrinal dependency relations or acceptable consequence dossiers exists.","No measured comparison against Logos/LSTO-assisted expert review, ordinary peer review, or a static concept-map condition exists.","No evidence yet shows multi-cycle turnover, degradation detection, or selectivity recovery after module correction.","Confidentiality, copyright, retention, model-training exclusion, and secure-processing terms are not approved by a venue or rights holders.","No venue-specific resource quotes or measured proposition-curation and exception-review rates support the cost bands."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"World novelty is unmeasured. This evaluation searched public web evidence for problem support, stakeholder authority, adjacent products, standards, practices, and research; it did not conduct patent, freedom-to-operate, comprehensive scholarly-database, code-repository, market-size, or worldwide product searches. Patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain a written pilot commitment from one journal or workshop with authority over the target workflow.","Measure baseline prevalence, duplicated labor, late-discovery frequency, and downstream rework in a bounded manuscript sample.","Create and independently validate one tradition-and-period module and gold-standard consequence-dossier rubric.","Complete the pre-registered 12-claim comparison against ordinary review and, if feasible, a Logos/LSTO-assisted expert-search comparator.","Demonstrate labor-adjusted time reduction without worse omissions, false paths, anachronism, minority-position loss, confidentiality, or authority leakage.","Demonstrate selectivity recovery on a fixed test set after one logged correction and retesting cycle.","Obtain venue approval for secure processing, rights, retention, incident response, and prohibition of unauthorized model training.","Replace preliminary cost assumptions with measured curation, review, security, and operating labor plus at least one implementation quote."],"reason":"Bounded web research established strong adjacent prior art, technical feasibility, a credible authorizer class, and concrete safety constraints, but it did not verify the specific problem, stakeholder demand, workflow advantage, multi-cycle regeneration, or safe live performance. Those questions require confidential workflow access, expert adjudication, proprietary labor data, and a live or retrospective partnered test; additional public-web searching cannot resolve them."},"proposal_index":2}