{"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_tradition_scoped_doctrinal_consequence_trace_v0","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Tradition-Scoped Doctrinal Consequence Trace","problem":"In a systematic-theology workshop or journal, a draft proposition about one doctrinal locus must be transformed into a review-ready map of its possible consequences for other doctrines within the author's declared tradition and corpus. That transformation is possible through ordinary scholarship, but each author or reviewer must reconstruct terminology, dependency chains, qualifications, and potential tensions. The candidate problem exists if this repeated tracing burden causes relevant consequences to surface only during late review, while generic keyword search returns textual matches rather than relationships that require examination.","actors":["Systematic theologians and theology graduate students","Historical-theology and doctrinal specialists","Journal editors or workshop directors","Peer reviewers","Curators of tradition-specific source modules","Authors whose arguments are being examined"],"observable_state":"The candidate state can be tested through revision histories, review reports, and work logs: time spent reconstructing doctrinal dependency lists; repeated searches for the same relationships; consequences first identified during late review; disagreements caused by equivocal terminology; false tensions produced by combining incompatible historical periods or schools; and reviewer time spent distinguishing real implications from mere word overlap. Facilitator state is observable through queued claim cards, processing time, specialist minutes, false flags, missed dependencies, module age, correction frequency, and recovery after recalibration.","consequence":"Potential consequences of a constructive theological claim can remain implicit until late review, producing avoidable rework or an argument that appears locally plausible but leaves important internal relationships unexamined. Reviewers may also spend scarce interpretive time rebuilding common dependency paths instead of assessing the author's substantive reasoning.","affected_objective":"Shorten the recurring path from a bounded doctrinal proposition to an auditable set of consequence questions while preserving interpretive plurality, historical specificity, authorial responsibility, and the existing standards for theological argument.","intervention":"Build a versioned, tradition-scoped doctrinal consequence trace service. Its reusable facilitator is a curated graph of propositions, distinctions, dependency types, historical scopes, and source anchors, coupled to bounded query rules. An author submits a structured claim card declaring the corpus, period or school, proposition being advanced, strength of assertion, operative definitions, and exclusions. The service traverses only the selected module and returns candidate entailments, tensions, affected loci, scope mismatches, and unresolved paths as questions for scholarly review—not verdicts. A rotating doctrinal specialist reviews ambiguous output and routes claims that exceed the module's scope to ordinary peer review. After each case, corrections and missed paths enter a calibration queue; maintainers version, retest, refresh, or retire the affected module before it returns to service. Intake is capped by active module and specialist capacity.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform a bounded doctrinal claim card into a review-ready consequence dossier containing candidate dependency paths, scope qualifications, tensions to examine, and explicit unknowns."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier model","domain_realization":"The proposed barrier is the repeated reconstruction of a combinatorial relationship map across doctrinal loci, definitions, historical scopes, and qualifications—not the absence of sources or inability to make the theological judgment."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"The service may generate consequence questions within a declared corpus and scope; it may not decide truth, orthodoxy, confessional standing, publication, or the acceptability of the author's conclusion."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"A maintained proposition graph, bounded traversal rules, and specialist exception lane process successive claim cards without being rebuilt for every manuscript."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A versioned claim-card contract requires the proposition, operative terms, assertion strength, tradition or corpus, historical scope, exclusions, and requested output."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"Traversal is confined to modules compatible with the declared corpus, period, school, and dependency type; cross-tradition comparison and under-specified claims are rerouted rather than forced through the graph."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"After each case, maintainers release the output, classify false flags and missed paths, refresh source anchors, retest affected rules, rotate specialist coverage, and restore or retire degraded modules."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity model","domain_realization":"Track acceptable consequence dossiers per module version and specialist session, including queue time, computation time, specialist minutes, corrections, missed dependencies, false flags, and degradation across successive cases."},{"archetype_element":"Substrate access condition","domain_realization":"Only claims with explicit scope, definitions, and source boundaries enter automated tracing; incomplete, novel, cross-tradition, or authority-seeking requests take the ordinary scholarly route."},{"archetype_element":"Saturation and interference monitor","domain_realization":"Monitor claim-card queue depth, module occupancy, exception volume, specialist availability, correction rate, unresolved paths, and failures caused by ambiguous or incompatible terminology."},{"archetype_element":"Byproduct and side-pathway guardrail","domain_realization":"Audit for spurious entailments, anachronistic links, collapse of minority positions, false equivalence across traditions, automation deference, and use of the output as an orthodoxy judgment."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality check","domain_realization":"The trace changes the rate at which consequence questions are surfaced; it does not make an incoherent claim coherent, establish a doctrine's truth, or alter the standards governing theological argument."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable catalyst steward","domain_realization":"A named scholarly curator owns module provenance, versioning, scope declarations, correction handling, workload, conflicts, appeals, and deactivation, while authors and reviewers retain substantive judgment."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Defines the claim-card preconditions, output form, historical and confessional scope, invariants, and reroute conditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a stable contract, each case requires renewed interpretation of the author's terms and boundaries, recreating the activation burden and permitting silent scope expansion."},{"mechanism_slug":"prevalidated_transformation_template","role":"Encodes a reviewed structure for consequence dossiers and locks dependency types, uncertainty labels, source anchors, and required qualifications while leaving substantive conclusions open.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the template, the service produces idiosyncratic lists that cannot carry forward a validated tracing pathway or be compared across cycles."},{"mechanism_slug":"workflow_automation_or_macro","role":"Traverses the selected proposition graph, applies bounded rules, validates module and scope compatibility, and logs every generated path.","counterfactual_removal":"Without reusable execution, the curated graph remains a reference work and specialists must manually reconstruct each dependency path, eliminating catalytic turnover."},{"mechanism_slug":"inhibitor_and_poison_screen","role":"Screens incoming claim cards for equivocal terms, incompatible periods or schools, missing scope, requests for verdicts, and modules with unresolved integrity warnings.","counterfactual_removal":"Without screening, malformed claims and scope conflicts can occupy specialist capacity or contaminate outputs with confident but inapplicable relationships."},{"mechanism_slug":"embedded_specialist_review_lane","role":"Examines ambiguous paths and exceptions under workload caps while escalating cases that require full historical or theological analysis.","counterfactual_removal":"Without bounded expert review, automated paths can be treated as settled implications, while every difficult case either fails silently or degrades the module."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Displays queue depth, available module and specialist capacity, exception rate, processing time, correction signals, module age, and recovery state.","counterfactual_removal":"Without capacity and degradation visibility, increased claim volume can saturate the exception lane while apparent automated throughput conceals a growing review backlog."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Turns logged errors into module retesting, source-anchor refresh, rule recalibration, curator rotation, reauthorization, or retirement before reuse.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration, stale relationships and accumulated interpretive errors continue to propagate even though the facilitator remains nominally available."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Measures acceptable dossiers per facilitator cycle and the distribution of valid prompts, false flags, missed dependencies, anachronistic paths, and specialist rework against ordinary review.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a counterfactual assay, rapid graph traversal could be mistaken for useful acceleration despite low selectivity, hidden curator labor, or easier claim selection."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Tests one bounded tradition-and-period module on a contained set of voluntary claims with precommitted quality, authority, and shutdown conditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a contained test, interpretive errors, authority leakage, and degradation could become embedded in editorial practice before they are observable."}],"causal_chain":["A scoped theological claim ordinarily requires repeated manual reconstruction of relationships to other doctrinal loci.","The claim-card interface makes definitions, assertion strength, corpus, historical scope, and exclusions explicit before tracing begins.","Compatibility screening rejects or reroutes claims that the selected module cannot responsibly process.","The reusable proposition graph and bounded rules traverse previously curated dependency paths at low marginal setup effort.","The service releases a consequence dossier framed as questions, qualifications, and unknowns rather than doctrinal verdicts.","A specialist reviews ambiguous paths while complete theological assessment remains with the author and ordinary peer reviewers.","Capacity and selectivity measures expose saturation, false flags, missed paths, anachronism, hidden labor, and downstream reviewer load.","Corrections from each completed case trigger versioned recalibration, retesting, refresh, rotation, or module retirement.","Continued reuse is allowed only while repeated cycles surface relevant consequence questions faster without weakening scholarly standards or transferring interpretive authority to the facilitator."],"baseline":"The credible baseline is ordinary author and peer-review practice: the author prepares an argument in prose, reviewers search sources and reconstruct relevant doctrinal relationships independently, and editors request revisions when consequences or scope problems are noticed. Comparison must hold claim complexity, declared corpus, source access, reviewer competence, substantive standards, and total human labor constant.","nearest_rivals":["Ordinary peer review: supplies open-ended substantive judgment and remains the final pathway, but reconstructs relationship maps per manuscript rather than reusing a bounded facilitator.","A static doctrinal encyclopedia or concept map: provides reference material but does not accept scoped claims, execute a selective transformation, route exceptions, measure turnover, or regenerate from case-level errors.","Citation search or concordance software: retrieves textual matches but does not distinguish entailment, tension, qualification, historical scope, or uncertainty within a declared doctrinal system.","Additional editorial or specialist staffing: expands bulk review capacity but does not by itself lower the repeated dependency-tracing burden through a reusable pathway.","A formal orthodoxy or confessional review: may issue an authorized judgment within its institution, whereas this service produces non-authoritative consequence questions for academic argument."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The intervention is catalytic only if a maintained, scoped graph and rule service completes multiple claim-to-dossier cycles, releases each dossier, measurably recovers through correction and retesting, and preserves the same standards and authority boundaries. If apparent improvement comes from extra reviewer labor, narrower claims, suppressed disagreement, static reference access, or automated verdicts, the catalytic attribution fails.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"A participating workshop director or journal editor may authorize and pause the bounded tracing procedure for manuscripts under that venue's control. Module curators control only graph integrity and scope. Authors retain control of their arguments, peer reviewers retain evaluative judgment, and relevant confessional institutions retain any authority they independently possess.","authorized_first_step":"Authorize a voluntary pilot using one explicitly bounded tradition-and-period module and twelve draft claim sections whose authors consent to process comparison, with six initially traced through the service and six initially reviewed through the usual route before a limited crossover audit.","excluded_actions":["Declaring a proposition true, false, orthodox, heretical, authentic, or representative of an entire tradition","Replacing peer review, source examination, historical analysis, or the author's defense of an inference","Combining traditions, periods, schools, or vocabularies without an explicit scholarly comparison design","Treating graph links, traversal counts, or generated tensions as evidence of doctrinal truth","Adding confidential manuscripts or restricted source material to a reusable module without authorization","Training or recalibrating the module on participant work without explicit scope and retention terms","Changing substantive editorial or academic standards to improve apparent cycle time","Compelling authors to adopt generated consequences or disclose confessional commitments","Continuing to use a module after integrity, scope, conflict, or authority-boundary failures trigger deactivation"],"halt_rollback":"Stop new tracing if the service generates an unauthorized doctrinal verdict, exposes confidential text, repeatedly produces anachronistic or cross-scope links, obscures a material minority position, exceeds specialist workload limits, or is treated as a publication or orthodoxy decision. Return active claims to ordinary review, withdraw affected dossiers, notify participating authors and editors, preserve a bounded incident record, and restore the module only after independent scholarly review, correction, retesting, and reauthorization; retire it if selectivity cannot be restored."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Doctrinal relationships may be too contested, historically situated, and argument-dependent to support reusable traversal rules. A graph may save search time only by reifying one curator's system, while ordinary prose review may surface fewer but more meaningful consequences.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified if a bounded manuscript sample shows that reviewers do not repeatedly reconstruct materially similar dependency paths, that late revisions are driven mainly by weak evidence or argument rather than missed doctrinal consequences, or that existing outlines and reference tools already make tracing a negligible part of the work.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if matched claims do not require less elapsed tracing time or duplicated reviewer work per acceptable consequence dossier; if apparent gains disappear after accounting for curation, specialist labor, claim scope, and case selection; if false or anachronistic paths offset useful prompts; or if selectivity cannot be restored across repeated cycles.","risks":["The graph may freeze one school, period, or curator's taxonomy and present it as the structure of a whole tradition.","Generated paths may encourage automation deference or be cited as theological authority.","Minority, oral, apophatic, narrative, or deliberately paradoxical forms of theology may be poorly represented.","Authors may strategically scope claim cards to avoid inconvenient relationships.","Confidential draft arguments or source annotations may be retained beyond their authorized use.","Curators may become hidden gatekeepers over which doctrinal relationships are legible.","A stale module may accelerate obsolete scholarship or anachronistic terminology.","False flags may increase reviewer work even when computation appears fast.","The exception lane may saturate, shifting rather than lowering the rate-limiting burden.","Metrics may reward easily encoded claims and marginalize theological work that resists propositional representation."]},"next_evidence_step":"Before processing any manuscript, freeze the pilot module, claim-card contract, assignment procedure, retention terms, and pass, pause, and kill criteria. For twelve consenting draft claim sections within the same declared corpus and historical scope, record elapsed tracing time, author and reviewer minutes, generated paths, useful prompts, false flags, missed dependencies later found by ordinary review, anachronistic links, unresolved disagreements, exception load, downstream revision time, and participant judgments about authority leakage. Have independent specialists review all dossiers without knowing which route produced them, then conduct the bounded crossover solely to identify route-specific omissions. Reprocess a fixed test set after scheduled recalibration to determine whether activity and selectivity recover across cycles. Do not expand beyond the module if labor-adjusted barrier reduction, historical selectivity, regeneration, or authority neutrality fails.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This proposal is materially distinct from proposal 1, Living-Tradition Source Context Gateway. Proposal 1 transforms requests to use already-accessible living-tradition sources into context-and-permission-aware use plans by reusing institutional relationships, referrals, and human brokerage; its dominant barriers are provenance, trust, access interpretation, and community contact. Proposal 2 transforms an author's already-scoped doctrinal proposition into a non-authoritative consequence dossier by reusing a curated proposition graph and bounded traversal service; its dominant barrier is combinatorial tracing among doctrinal loci. It does not prepare source access, broker community relationships, or contextualize archival use, and proposal 1 would not perform its argument-dependency transformation. The intervention, substrate, output, facilitator topology, failure modes, authorities, and evidence unit are therefore independently adoptable rather than features or population variants of proposal 1.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Generate the second complete candidate for the same archetype-domain cell","Address a problem materially different from living-tradition source-use preparation","Preserve reusable facilitation, selectivity, turnover, capacity, regeneration, neutrality, and deactivation","Specify direct diversity from every earlier sealed proposal"],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version; no parent proposal","Defined the substrate as a scoped doctrinal proposition and the output as a review-ready consequence dossier","Located the activation barrier in repeated combinatorial dependency tracing rather than provenance, access, trust, or community liaison","Separated consequence prompting from theological truth, orthodoxy, and editorial judgment"],"operational_changes":["Initial version; established a scoped claim-card interface, graph traversal, compatibility screen, exception lane, module monitoring, recalibration, and retirement cycle","Bounded the first probe to one tradition-and-period module and twelve consenting draft claim sections"],"evidence_changes":["Initial version; specified matched usual-route comparison, independent dossier review, limited crossover audit, labor accounting, and post-regeneration retesting","Included useful prompts, false flags, missed dependencies, anachronism, authority leakage, degradation, and downstream revision load"],"claim_changes":["Prior art remains unsearched","No novelty, prevalence, demand, effect-size, or successful-performance claim is made","Catalytic attribution is conditional on selective multi-cycle reuse with restored activity and unchanged scholarly authority"]}}