{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__religious_studies_theology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"cpere_living_tradition_source_context_gateway_v0","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Living-Tradition Source Context Gateway","problem":"In an academic religious-studies department and affiliated archive, a recurring low-risk research request must be transformed from a proposed use of already-accessible living-tradition material into a context-complete source-use plan. Each researcher currently reconstructs provenance, access conditions, terminology, interpretive cautions, and appropriate community-contact routes. This repeated search, trust, and translation burden can stall otherwise permitted work, while hurried researchers may proceed with incomplete context.","actors":["Religious-studies researchers and graduate students","Subject librarians and archivists","Language, historical, and tradition-area specialists","Representatives designated by relevant living communities","Repository access and rights staff","Departmental research-ethics lead","Downstream thesis supervisors, editors, and instructors"],"observable_state":"Request records show repeated clarification emails, duplicated searches for the same access or provenance facts, multiple referrals before the correct specialist is found, elapsed time between initial inquiry and a usable source plan, dossiers returned for missing context, and cases proceeding with unresolved terminology or permission questions. Facilitator health is observable through queue depth, staff minutes per case, conflicts, reroute rate, recovery time, and disagreement or correction rates in audited outputs.","consequence":"Researchers lose time rebuilding similar contextual infrastructure, scarce specialists receive fragmented interruptions, and downstream scholarship or teaching may rely on decontextualized, overconfident, or permission-incompatible uses of religious material.","affected_objective":"Reduce repeated preparation time from eligible inquiry to ethically and academically usable source plan while preserving repository rules, community authority, interpretive plurality, scholarly rigor, fair access, and sustainable specialist workload.","intervention":"Create a bounded source-context gateway for already-accessible, non-restricted living-tradition materials. A published intake contract requires a source identifier, proposed use, claimed access basis, relevant language, and known uncertainties. A rotating librarian–specialist–community-liaison service applies a versioned dossier template and returns a context packet containing provenance and access checks, contested terms, multiple applicable interpretive frames, unresolved questions, and referrals. It neither approves scholarly claims nor grants access. Eligible routine cases cycle through the gateway; ambiguous, restricted, doctrinally adjudicative, or conflict-laden cases return to full direct consultation. Intake is metered to active capacity. After each case, the team releases the dossier, records corrections and conflicts, refreshes the template, takes protected recovery time, and rotates coverage before accepting another cycle.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform an eligible proposed use of an already-accessible religious source into a documented source-use plan with provenance, access basis, contextual cautions, interpretive alternatives, and unresolved questions."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier model","domain_realization":"The candidate barrier is repeated reconstruction of specialist search, trust, terminology, provenance, and referral work—not absence of sources, permission, language competence, or research funding."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"Only low-risk uses of already-accessible materials enter; the gateway cannot waive repository restrictions, consent, confidentiality, community protocols, or ordinary scholarly substantiation."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"A standing, rotating source-context service combines maintained relationships, a validated dossier template, and bounded specialist review, then returns ready for another request."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A versioned intake contract defines required fields, output guarantees, release conditions, and mandatory rerouting triggers."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"Admit routine context-mapping cases while diverting restricted materials, novel access disputes, sacred or confidential content, conflicts of interest, and requests to declare one theology authoritative."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"After each cycle, close the case, log corrections, update relationship and terminology notes, review conflicts, reserve recovery time, and rotate or retrain personnel when activity degrades."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity model","domain_realization":"Measure acceptable dossiers completed per staffed review session together with staff minutes, queue time, reroutes, corrections, recovery time, and performance across successive cycles."},{"archetype_element":"Saturation and interference monitor","domain_realization":"A capacity view displays queued cases, current assignments, elapsed cycle time, specialist availability, conflict holds, correction rate, and downstream consultation load."},{"archetype_element":"Byproduct and side-pathway guardrail","domain_realization":"Audit for flattened internal diversity, false claims of community endorsement, disclosure of restricted information, template-forced interpretations, unequal access, and downstream consultation overload."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality check","domain_realization":"The gateway accelerates preparation only; it does not make inaccessible evidence accessible, settle contested interpretations, confer consent, or make an academically inadequate claim valid."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable catalyst steward","domain_realization":"A named service steward manages published eligibility, workload, conflicts, corrections, appeals, succession, and deactivation without acquiring authority over access or theological truth."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Publishes meaningful intake preconditions, bounded outputs, protected invariants, and versioned reroute rules for every gateway encounter.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, each case renegotiates scope and required evidence, recreating the handoff barrier and enabling silent expansion into access or doctrinal decisions."},{"mechanism_slug":"prevalidated_transformation_template","role":"Carries forward a reviewed dossier structure while leaving explicit fields for disagreement, local protocol, and case-specific uncertainty.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, reviewers repeatedly reconstruct the same provenance, terminology, access, and interpretive checks, so the facilitator loses reusable leverage."},{"mechanism_slug":"reusable_broker_or_convener_service","role":"Maintains specialist and community-contact routes across cases under neutrality, conflict-disclosure, fair-access, and succession rules.","counterfactual_removal":"Without maintained relationships, every researcher rebuilds search and trust from zero, leaving only a checklist rather than a catalytic service."},{"mechanism_slug":"embedded_specialist_review_lane","role":"Places rotating expert judgment at the recurring context bottleneck, with intake caps and escalation for unsuitable cases.","counterfactual_removal":"Without bounded specialist judgment, the template cannot resolve meaningful contextual ambiguity and may automate superficial completeness."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Makes queue depth, available reviewer time, cycle time, reroutes, conflicts, correction signals, and recovery state visible to the intake steward.","counterfactual_removal":"Without capacity visibility, new requests can saturate reviewers while high utilization is mistaken for healthy throughput."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Defines post-case closure, correction review, relationship maintenance, protected rest, template refresh, rotation, retraining, and retirement thresholds.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration, specialist attention and relational trust are silently consumed, corrections accumulate, and nominal availability masks degraded judgment."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Compares completed acceptable dossiers per facilitator cycle with off-target outcomes, resource use, case mix, and a usual-route baseline.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the assay, faster handling could be misattributed to easier cases, extra labor, suppressed disagreements, or weaker contextual standards."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Tests the complete facilitator cycle on a contained set of eligible requests with precommitted comparison and stop conditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded counterfactual probe, the gateway could become institutionalized before its barrier reduction, selectivity, and regeneration are observable."}],"causal_chain":["Eligible source-use requests repeatedly encounter the same provenance, terminology, trust, referral, and access-interpretation burden.","The intake contract rejects incomplete or out-of-bound requests before they occupy specialist capacity.","The reusable template carries forward stable checks while exposing uncertainties and contested interpretations rather than resolving them by fiat.","The standing service reuses maintained relationships and specialist knowledge to complete the bounded context packet.","Reroute rules keep restricted, exceptional, conflicted, or doctrinally adjudicative cases on full direct-consultation pathways.","Each acceptable packet is released to the researcher, leaving scholarly judgment and access authority with their existing holders.","Capacity and selectivity measures distinguish useful turnover from saturation, rubber-stamping, hidden labor, and downstream overload.","Post-cycle correction review, rest, rotation, relationship maintenance, and template refresh restore the facilitator to a ready state.","Continued operation is permitted only while the gateway lowers the targeted preparation burden without changing access rights, evidentiary standards, or interpretive authority."],"baseline":"The credible baseline is the existing decentralized route: each researcher separately contacts faculty, librarians, archivists, translators, and community representatives; constructs an idiosyncratic context memo; and receives ordinary supervisory review. Comparison must hold eligibility, substantive standards, researcher effort, specialist labor, and downstream review constant rather than comparing the gateway only with abandoned or unusually difficult cases.","nearest_rivals":["A static research-ethics checklist: cheaper and easier to distribute, but it does not maintain relationships, exercise bounded judgment, measure repeated turnover, or regenerate facilitator capacity.","Additional librarian or faculty staffing: may increase bulk review capacity but does not itself create a reusable selective pathway or show that the recurring activation burden has been lowered.","General methods or cultural-competency training: builds researcher capability broadly but does not provide a case-level facilitator that repeatedly maps live provenance, access, and referral uncertainties.","Direct researcher-to-community consultation: remains necessary for exceptional or authority-bearing questions, but reconstructing the connection for every routine case does not reuse a governed interface.","A repository access review or institutional ethics board: retains authority over its own protections, whereas the gateway only prepares context and routes questions without granting access or approval."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal counts as catalytic only if the same bounded service demonstrably processes multiple eligible source-use requests by reusing maintained relationships, a stable interface, and a refreshed template; then releases each case and recovers for another cycle while standards and authority remain unchanged. If improvement instead comes from added labor, permanently relaxed review, researcher training alone, or easier case selection, the catalytic interpretation fails.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The departmental research-ethics lead may authorize and pause the bounded pilot procedure. Repositories and rights holders retain all access and disclosure authority; designated community representatives speak only within their mandates; supervisors and researchers retain responsibility for scholarly interpretation and claims.","authorized_first_step":"Authorize a voluntary pilot covering twelve already-accessible, non-restricted source-use requests, with six assigned to the gateway route and six to the usual route under the same substantive review standard, subject to repository and participant agreement.","excluded_actions":["Granting or implying permission to access, quote, publish, display, or teach restricted material","Speaking for an entire religious tradition or treating one representative as exhaustive","Adjudicating doctrinal truth, authenticity, orthodoxy, or the validity of a scholar's conclusion","Substituting template completion for direct consultation when authority, consent, confidentiality, or sacred restrictions are implicated","Collecting or exposing confidential community information unnecessary to the source-use plan","Relaxing evidentiary, ethical, repository, or supervisory requirements to improve cycle time","Compelling specialists or community representatives to participate or exceed workload and refusal limits","Using eligibility rules to exclude disfavored researchers, communities, traditions, or interpretations"],"halt_rollback":"Immediately stop new intake after unauthorized disclosure, undisclosed conflict, repeated contextual misrepresentation, workload-limit breach, loss of designated representation, or evidence that the gateway is being treated as approval. Return open cases to the ordinary route, notify the relevant authority and affected participants, correct or withdraw faulty packets, preserve an incident record, and resume only after independent review confirms that the cause and regeneration failure have been addressed."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The contextual work may be irreducibly case-specific: maintained relationships and templates could save little time while encouraging researchers to force distinct traditions and source histories into a standardized frame. Direct consultation may produce slower but materially safer and more plural interpretation.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified if review of a bounded request sample shows that source-use plans are not materially delayed by repeated provenance, context, trust, referral, or access-interpretation work, or that the dominant constraints are unavailable evidence, required language study, substantive analysis, funding, or nondelegable consent decisions.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if matched eligible cases do not show lower elapsed preparation time or less duplicated researcher and specialist work per acceptable dossier, if apparent gains disappear after accounting for case mix and total labor, if correction or misrepresentation outcomes worsen, or if facilitator performance cannot be restored across repeated cycles.","risks":["Standardization may flatten internal disagreement or privilege traditions with easily legible institutional representatives.","The gateway may acquire informal power as an access gatekeeper despite lacking formal authority.","Researchers may cite a context packet as community endorsement or as a substitute for their own interpretation.","Eligibility rules may advantage well-prepared or well-resourced researchers.","Sensitive information may be unnecessarily centralized or disclosed.","Specialists and community liaisons may experience overload, uncompensated relational labor, conflict, or burnout.","A stale template may accelerate outdated terminology, access assumptions, or representative arrangements.","Capacity metrics may reward speed and utilization while hiding corrections, refusals, emotional burden, or downstream consultation queues.","A small pilot may underrepresent contested, multilingual, Indigenous, diasporic, or internally diverse cases and therefore support unjustified generalization."]},"next_evidence_step":"Before intake, register eligibility, assignments, metrics, and stop rules for the twelve-case pilot. For each case, record elapsed time, researcher hours, specialist and liaison minutes, number of repeated contacts, completeness against the common standard, reroutes, corrections, unresolved disagreements, access or representation errors, participant burden, and downstream review time. Audit all gateway packets and matched usual-route dossiers using reviewers who did not produce them, including a properly mandated representative when community claims are assessed. Compare routes without asserting an effect size, inspect whether performance and selectivity persist across successive facilitator cycles, conduct a recovery check after scheduled regeneration, and stop rather than expand if authority boundaries or participant protections fail.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed against other proposals; this sealed task concerns exactly one proposal, and no prior experiment candidates were consulted.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Produce the first complete schema-conforming candidate","Preserve facilitator reuse, selectivity, capacity, regeneration, and authority neutrality in a humanities-domain realization","Specify bounded counterfactual evidence and explicit falsifiers"],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version; no parent proposal","Defined the substrate as an eligible source-use request and the output as a context-complete source-use plan","Separated contextual acceleration from access permission, community endorsement, and theological adjudication"],"operational_changes":["Initial version; established intake, triage, capacity, reroute, recovery, conflict, succession, and rollback procedures","Bounded the first pilot to twelve already-accessible, non-restricted requests"],"evidence_changes":["Initial version; specified a concurrent usual-route comparison and full packet audit","Included turnover, selectivity, labor, degradation, recovery, and downstream-load observations"],"claim_changes":["Prior art explicitly remains unsearched","No claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, effect size, or successful performance is made","Catalytic attribution is conditional on multi-cycle reuse with unchanged standards and authority"]}}