{"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_uncertainty_preserving_religious_calendar_concordance_v0","proposal_index":4,"version":0,"title":"Uncertainty-Preserving Religious Calendar Concordance","problem":"In a history-of-religions project, a source-attested date expressed in a religious, local, regnal, lunar, lunisolar, or mixed calendar must be transformed into a chronologically comparable interval before events can be ordered across sources. Ordinary conversion can require reconstructing the calendar variant, epoch, intercalation rule, day boundary, locality, observational status, and copying history for each expression. The candidate problem exists if this repeated reconstruction delays comparison or encourages scholars to substitute a falsely precise civil-calendar date for an ambiguous source expression.","actors":["Historians of religion","Textual scholars and epigraphers","Specialists in particular calendar traditions","Language and manuscript specialists","Digital-humanities researchers","Research-data curators","Editors and peer reviewers","Custodians or authorities consulted about living calendrical practice"],"observable_state":"A bounded corpus audit can measure elapsed time and scholar minutes per conversion, repeated reconstruction of the same calendar rules, conflicting conversions of identical expressions, undocumented epoch or locality assumptions, point dates reported where only intervals are justified, errors discovered during event ordering, exception queues, specialist corrections, module age, and downstream revisions caused by chronology changes. Facilitator condition is observable through conversion success, assumption completeness, exception rate, unsupported precision, variant mismatch, correction frequency, and recovery after module recalibration.","consequence":"Cross-source chronologies may remain costly to assemble or may appear more certain than the underlying evidence permits. An incorrect epoch, variant, intercalation assumption, or day boundary can reorder events, manufacture simultaneity, or obscure genuine disagreement among sources.","affected_objective":"Reduce repeated calendar-reconstruction work while producing auditable, uncertainty-bounded chronological concordances that preserve source notation, local variation, contested assumptions, and scholarly responsibility.","intervention":"Create a versioned religious-calendar concordance service. Its reusable facilitator consists of separately governed conversion modules for explicitly bounded calendar, period, locality, and variant combinations; an uncertainty-propagation engine; and a specialist exception lane. A published intake contract requires the exact source expression, transcription confidence, source date and provenance reference, proposed calendar identification, locality, relevant day boundary, and known copying or retrospective-conversion risks. Before execution, a compatibility screen verifies that the required module and cofactors are present. The service returns the unchanged source expression, every operative assumption, candidate conversions as intervals or sets, sensitivity to disputed inputs, module version, and unresolved questions. It does not select the historically true date. Ambiguous, mixed, unsupported, or authority-seeking cases go to full scholarly analysis. After each case, discrepancy logs, corrected rules, test cases, specialist recovery, and version review regenerate or retire the module before reuse.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform an eligible source-attested date expression into a provenance-preserving concordance record containing bounded candidate intervals, assumptions, sensitivities, module version, and unresolved alternatives."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier model","domain_realization":"The recurring barrier is reconstruction and application of calendar-specific epochs, variants, intercalations, day boundaries, local observations, and uncertainty propagation—not absence of the source, proof that the event occurred, or resolution of a contested chronology."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"The service may compute consequences of declared calendar assumptions; it may not determine the correct religious observance, validate an event, erase source disagreement, or convert uncertainty into a single authoritative date."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"Versioned calendar-rule modules, an uncertainty engine, validation tests, and a bounded specialist lane process successive eligible date expressions without reconstructing the conversion pathway each time."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A stable input contract declares the exact date expression, transcription confidence, proposed calendar and variant, period, locality, day boundary, source reference, and known ambiguities."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"A conversion runs only when the expression matches a validated module's calendar, period, locality, variant, and evidence requirements; mixed, corrupt, retrospective, or unsupported expressions are rerouted."},{"archetype_element":"Cofactor or complement map","domain_realization":"Each module declares required complements such as an epoch, locality, day-boundary convention, intercalation evidence, observation rule, source genre, numeral reading, and reference chronology; missing complements remain explicit rather than being guessed."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"After each case, maintainers release the result, classify discrepancies, add authorized test cases, correct rules, rerun validation, rotate or rest specialists, refresh documentation, and retire modules whose activity or provenance cannot be restored."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity model","domain_realization":"Track acceptable concordance records per module version and specialist session together with computation time, scholar minutes, exception load, correction rate, unsupported precision, recovery time, and performance across successive cases."},{"archetype_element":"Substrate access condition","domain_realization":"Only accessible source expressions with sufficient transcription, source reference, scope, and calendar metadata enter routine conversion; intake support and ordinary chronological analysis remain available for incomplete cases."},{"archetype_element":"Saturation and interference monitor","domain_realization":"Display queued expressions, active module capacity, specialist availability, cycle time, unresolved variants, failed checks, correction signals, recovery state, and downstream chronology-review backlog."},{"archetype_element":"Inhibitor or poison monitor","domain_realization":"Detect mixed calendar systems, corrupt numerals, incompatible epochs, retrospective harmonization, copied dates, missing locality, variant drift, stale rule tables, and throughput pressure that encourages default assumptions."},{"archetype_element":"Byproduct and side-pathway guardrail","domain_realization":"Audit for false precision, anachronistic conversion rules, collapsed sectarian or local variation, circular use of the target chronology as an input, hidden defaults, and downstream treatment of a candidate interval as an established event date."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality check","domain_realization":"The facilitator accelerates conversion under stated assumptions; it does not make different calendars conceptually identical, prove an event's historicity, resolve a source conflict, or authorize a living community's observance."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable catalyst steward","domain_realization":"A named chronological-data curator owns module scope, provenance, versions, workload, conflicts, incidents, appeals, test coverage, and deactivation while scholars and living calendar authorities retain their respective interpretive authority."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Publishes the required source expression, metadata, assumptions, permitted outputs, protected invariants, and reroute conditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a stable contract, each case requires renewed clarification, hidden defaults enter conversions, and incompatible expressions reach the facilitator."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_cofactor_system","role":"Maps and checks every complement required by a conversion module, including epoch, locality, variant, day boundary, intercalation evidence, and transcription confidence.","counterfactual_removal":"Without explicit cofactor checks, a module may appear reusable only because scholars silently supply missing assumptions, shifting rather than lowering the barrier."},{"mechanism_slug":"prevalidated_transformation_template","role":"Encodes reviewed calendar rules and a standard output that preserves the source expression, alternatives, assumptions, sensitivity, uncertainty, and version.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the template, conversion logic and reporting are reconstructed per expression, and results cannot carry forward a stable validated pathway."},{"mechanism_slug":"workflow_automation_or_macro","role":"Executes the selected rule module, propagates declared uncertainty, validates the output form, and logs each transformation and module version.","counterfactual_removal":"Without repeatable execution, scholars must manually apply calendar arithmetic and uncertainty rules for each expression, eliminating multi-cycle leverage."},{"mechanism_slug":"inhibitor_and_poison_screen","role":"Screens for corrupt transcription, mixed systems, incompatible variants or epochs, retrospective conversion, missing locality, circular inputs, and stale modules before execution.","counterfactual_removal":"Without screening, unsuitable expressions can generate confidently wrong dates, contaminate test sets, or occupy scarce specialist capacity."},{"mechanism_slug":"embedded_specialist_review_lane","role":"Routes bounded ambiguities to calendar, language, or textual specialists under capacity and escalation rules.","counterfactual_removal":"Without specialist review, ambiguous expressions are either forced through unsuitable modules or every case returns to full manual reconstruction."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Shows queue depth, module readiness, specialist capacity, cycle time, failed compatibility checks, correction rate, module age, recovery state, and downstream review load.","counterfactual_removal":"Without capacity and degradation visibility, exception work can saturate specialists while rapid automated execution masks a growing unresolved queue."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Turns discrepancy reports into corrected rules, expanded validation tests, documentation refresh, specialist rotation, reauthorization, replacement, or retirement.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration, stale epochs, rules, and defaults continue producing outputs even though the nominal module remains available."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Measures acceptable concordances per module cycle together with wrong-variant use, false precision, omitted alternatives, exceptions, corrections, and total labor against manual conversion.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the assay, fast arithmetic could be mistaken for useful catalysis despite hidden specialist effort, easier expressions, or degraded chronological selectivity."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Tests two tightly scoped modules on a contained set of date expressions with precommitted comparison, authority, uncertainty, and shutdown rules.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded counterfactual probe, false precision and rule errors could propagate into a larger chronology before selectivity and recoverability are tested."}],"causal_chain":["A source-attested date ordinarily triggers repeated reconstruction of calendar rules and case-specific assumptions.","The intake contract preserves the original expression and makes transcription, calendar, variant, period, locality, and uncertainty explicit.","Compatibility and cofactor checks prevent unsupported or mixed expressions from entering a routine conversion module.","The reusable module applies a previously tested transformation while the uncertainty engine propagates alternative inputs rather than selecting convenient defaults.","The service releases an auditable set of candidate intervals, sensitivities, assumptions, and unresolved questions instead of an authoritative point date.","Specialists examine bounded exceptions, while historically or religiously contested cases remain on the ordinary scholarly pathway.","Turnover and selectivity measures distinguish useful reuse from false precision, easy-case selection, hidden labor, saturation, and downstream correction.","Discrepancies trigger module testing, rule correction, documentation refresh, specialist recovery, reauthorization, or retirement before the next cycle.","Continued use is allowed only while successive conversions lower reconstruction burden without changing evidentiary standards, event claims, or calendrical authority."],"baseline":"The credible baseline is ordinary manual chronological analysis: a scholar transcribes the expression, identifies the calendar and variant, consults relevant reference materials, reconstructs epochs and intercalations, performs the conversion, evaluates uncertainty, and documents the result for review. Comparison must hold source access, expression difficulty, calendar scope, specialist competence, evidentiary standards, total labor, output granularity, and downstream review constant.","nearest_rivals":["A static calendar-conversion table: may supply lookup values but does not verify compatibility, propagate case-specific uncertainty, route exceptions, measure turnover, or regenerate from discrepancies.","A generic date-conversion application: performs arithmetic but may not preserve source notation, provenance, historical variants, disputed inputs, or the distinction between candidate and established dates.","Additional chronological specialists: expand bulk capacity but do not necessarily lower repeated reconstruction through a reusable selective pathway.","A historical chronology database: stores prior conclusions, whereas the proposed service transforms new scoped expressions under explicit assumptions and leaves contested event claims unresolved.","Manual expert conversion: remains necessary for exceptional and disputed cases but pays much of the setup and calculation burden anew for each expression."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The intervention is catalytic only if the same scoped modules complete multiple expression-to-concordance cycles, release auditable outputs, recover from discrepancy-driven recalibration, and preserve uncertainty and authority. If improvement comes from extra specialist labor, undocumented default assumptions, a static lookup table, easier expressions, narrower outputs, or declaring one chronology authoritative, the catalytic attribution fails.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"A participating project's principal investigator and chronological-data curator may authorize and pause the bounded research workflow. Source custodians retain control over restricted material, authors and reviewers retain responsibility for historical claims, and living religious communities or their designated authorities retain any authority over contemporary calendrical practice and observance.","authorized_first_step":"Authorize a pilot using twenty-four already-accessible date expressions arranged as twelve matched pairs across two explicitly bounded calendar-period-locality modules, with one expression from each pair processed through the service and the other through ordinary manual conversion before independent review.","excluded_actions":["Declaring that a computed date proves an event occurred","Selecting a historically true date when the evidence supports multiple candidates","Dictating correct contemporary religious observance or speaking for a living calendar authority","Combining calendar variants, epochs, localities, periods, or day boundaries without explicit justification","Replacing a source's original date expression with the converted value","Hiding defaults, uncertainty, sensitivity, circular inputs, failed checks, or module versions","Processing restricted source material outside its governing access conditions","Relaxing evidentiary or review standards to improve throughput","Continuing to use a module after scope, integrity, provenance, workload, or selectivity deactivation triggers","Using the output for legal deadlines, personal religious observance, or safety-critical scheduling without separate authoritative validation"],"halt_rollback":"Stop new conversion immediately after restricted-data exposure, circular calibration, wrong-variant execution, repeated false precision, corrupted source-expression handling, unlogged rule changes, specialist workload breach, or treatment of outputs as authoritative event or observance dates. Quarantine the affected module, return open expressions to manual review, withdraw or correct its outputs, notify authorized project stakeholders, preserve the original expressions and permitted incident record, and resume only after independent chronological review, correction, complete retesting, and reauthorization; retire the module if selectivity cannot be restored."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Calendar conversion may be inseparable from textual criticism and historical argument: the calendar identification, numeral reading, locality, and intercalation assumptions may be the substantive research rather than reusable setup. A conversion service could save arithmetic time only by concealing precisely the disagreements scholars need to examine.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified if a bounded corpus audit shows that repeated calendar-rule reconstruction and calculation are not material contributors to chronological preparation or correction, or that uncertainty is dominated by illegible sources, disputed event identity, missing locality, or textual transmission questions that cannot enter a reusable module.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if matched expressions do not require less elapsed conversion time or duplicated labor per acceptable concordance; if apparent gains disappear after accounting for module construction, specialist review, case selection, and correction; if unsupported precision, omitted alternatives, or wrong-variant use increases; or if module activity cannot be restored across successive cycles.","risks":["A module may privilege one reconstruction of a calendar whose historical rules remain disputed.","Civil-calendar output may become the privileged representation and displace the source's own temporal categories.","Intervals may still convey false confidence if their assumptions or source uncertainty are incomplete.","Historical, sectarian, regional, observational, and institutional variants may be collapsed.","Circular calibration may reproduce a chronology that the research is supposed to test.","Corrupt numerals or copied dates may pass syntactic checks while remaining historically unreliable.","Living calendrical authorities may be misrepresented by modules built for historical research.","Automated throughput may saturate specialist exceptions or downstream chronology review.","Well-documented calendars may receive service while less documented traditions remain excluded.","Stale rule modules may propagate errors across many outputs before detection.","Researchers may cite candidate conversions as established dates despite explicit warnings."]},"next_evidence_step":"Before processing expressions, freeze the two module scopes, source and cofactor requirements, conversion rules, uncertainty representation, assignment method, manual baseline, test cases, access terms, and pass, pause, and kill criteria. For twenty-four accessible expressions in twelve matched pairs, record elapsed time, scholar and specialist minutes, assumptions supplied, failed checks, candidate intervals, interval sensitivity, wrong-variant or epoch errors, omitted alternatives, unsupported point estimates, corrections, exception load, and downstream review time. Have independent qualified reviewers assess every concordance and manual result while blinded to route. Following scheduled discrepancy review, rerun a fixed test suite and a permitted subset of expressions to determine whether module activity and selectivity recover across cycles. Do not expand beyond the two modules if labor-adjusted barrier reduction, uncertainty preservation, regeneration, authority neutrality, or downstream capacity fails.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This proposal is materially distinct from all three earlier sealed proposals. Proposal 1, Living-Tradition Source Context Gateway, transforms a proposed source use into a context- and permission-aware plan through maintained relationships, referrals, and human brokerage; proposal 4 assumes the date expression is already accessible and performs a bounded chronological conversion without mediating access or community contact. Proposal 2, Tradition-Scoped Doctrinal Consequence Trace, traverses a proposition graph to surface implications among doctrinal loci; proposal 4 instead applies scoped calendrical rules and propagates uncertainty from a date expression to candidate chronological intervals, without evaluating theology or argumentative entailment. Proposal 3, Ritual Sequence Annotation Bench, segments and aligns audiovisual or observational records into multilayer event representations; proposal 4 neither annotates ritual behavior nor establishes event boundaries, but converts an already-transcribed temporal expression through calendar-specific modules. Its problem, substrate, output, facilitator, cofactors, causal path, authorities, failure modes, and evidence unit are independently adoptable from those of proposals 1, 2, and 3.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Generate the fourth complete candidate for the same archetype-domain cell","Address a problem materially different from source-use preparation, doctrinal consequence tracing, and ritual-record annotation","Preserve reusable facilitation, cofactor sufficiency, selectivity, turnover, capacity monitoring, regeneration, neutrality, and deactivation","Explain diversity from all three earlier sealed proposals"],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version; no parent proposal","Defined the substrate as a scoped source-attested date expression and the output as an uncertainty-preserving chronological concordance","Located the activation barrier in repeated reconstruction and application of calendar rules and complements","Separated chronological conversion from event historicity, source access, ritual interpretation, doctrinal evaluation, and living calendrical authority"],"operational_changes":["Initial version; established metadata intake, cofactor verification, scoped conversion modules, uncertainty propagation, specialist exceptions, capacity metering, discrepancy-driven regeneration, and module retirement","Bounded the first probe to twenty-four expressions across two calendar-period-locality modules"],"evidence_changes":["Initial version; specified matched manual conversion, independent blinded review, total-labor accounting, fixed-suite retesting, and repeated-cycle recovery assessment","Included wrong-variant use, omitted alternatives, false precision, circular calibration, exception load, degradation, and downstream-review burden"],"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, preserved uncertainty, and unchanged evidentiary and calendrical authority"]}}