{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__sociology_anthropology:P1:v0","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__sociology_anthropology","search_queries":["site:aiatsis.gov.au Code Ethics Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Research consultation community permission 2020","community research liaison service ethnography fieldwork entry university community engagement official","ethnographic research access gatekeepers community authorization fieldwork study","community based participatory research liaison broker trust university community prior art","site:nih.gov tribal research review community approval IRB research tribal nation official guidance","site:americananthro.org ethics community consent anthropology research official statement","site:who.int community engagement research ethics community authorization guidance","site:.edu community research liaison office intake community engaged research service","site:ecfr.gov 45 CFR 46 informed consent IRB research official","site:bls.gov oes social scientists all other interpreters translators project management specialists May 2025 wages","\"Community-university Research Liaisons\" \"Translating the Languages\"","doi Community-university Research Liaisons Translating Languages Research Culture Todd LaVeaux Christopher"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Strategies for Gaining Access in Doing Fieldwork: Reflection of Two Researchers","publisher":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods / Academic Conferences & Publishing International","url":"https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1251","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2010-09-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Two fieldwork accounts identify obtaining field access as a major pitfall that can consume substantial researcher time.","The authors distinguish formal and personal access strategies and organize access work across pre-entry, fieldwork, exit, and return stages.","The evidence establishes visible recurring access work but does not estimate its population prevalence or average cost."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Community-university Research Liaisons: Translating the Languages of Research and Culture","publisher":"Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health","url":"https://journalindigenouswellbeing.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/02Christopher.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2013","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A grant-funded Montana State University center employed six community-university research liaisons located in Native American communities.","The liaisons bridged university and community settings, translated concepts and protocols, assisted partnership development, and built trust.","The paper documents high liaison workload, limited local budgets, context-specific community protocols, and the fact that liaisons did not themselves represent tribal decision authority.","This is a close implemented analogue of the proposed standing liaison, making the core role established rather than novel."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Research Involving American Indian and Alaska Native Persons","publisher":"National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects Research Protections","url":"https://irbo.nih.gov/research-with-vulnerable-populations/research-involving-american-indian-and-alaska-native-persons/","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2025-07-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NIH states that research conducted without proper Tribal engagement and permission has caused group harms even when federal rules and institutional IRB review were satisfied.","NIH recognizes that determining applicable Tribal approvals can be unfamiliar and difficult for investigators.","Its operational pathway requires consultation with the Tribal Health Research Office, assistance identifying the relevant Tribal Authority, separate Tribal and IRB approvals where applicable, and submission of documented determinations.","The page clearly distinguishes advisory or facilitative offices from Tribal governmental entities that can grant or deny permission."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Ethical Research","publisher":"Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies","url":"https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-research","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2020-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The AIATSIS Code requires meaningful engagement and reciprocity between researchers and affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals or communities.","AIATSIS provides an ethics committee, application process, guidance, templates, training, and operating procedures.","The official infrastructure demonstrates an identifiable authorizer and institutional demand for structured, community-aware research-entry support."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Anthropological Ethics","publisher":"American Anthropological Association","url":"https://americananthro.org/about/anthropological-ethics/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Professional principles require anthropologists to do no harm, obtain informed consent and necessary permissions, weigh obligations to affected parties, protect records, and maintain ethical relationships.","A liaison process cannot replace individual consent, necessary permissions, confidentiality, or investigators' professional duties."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans","publisher":"Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, hosted by World Health Organization","url":"https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/ethics/web-cioms-ethicalguidelines.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2016","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Guideline 7 calls for early, sustained, collaborative and transparent community engagement involving diverse stakeholders.","Protocols should specify the engagement plan, responsible parties, timing, and allocated resources.","Community engagement must not pressure individuals; individual informed consent remains necessary.","Engagement can itself become formative research requiring ethics review, and unresolved disagreements may require research to be forgone."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"45 CFR Part 46—Protection of Human Subjects","publisher":"United States Electronic Code of Federal Regulations","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2018-06-19; current through 2026-08-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Covered human-subjects research requires institutional and IRB controls independent of a liaison service.","IRBs may approve, require modification, or disapprove covered research and must maintain written review, reporting, conflict, and recordkeeping procedures.","IRB approval applies within other institutional and federal requirements, so it does not automatically constitute community authorization.","Shadow evaluation using identifiable private information can itself trigger regulatory or institutional review unless a valid exemption or authorization applies."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Table 1: National Employment and Wage Data by Occupation, May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["May 2025 mean annual wages were $75,620 for anthropologists and archaeologists, $114,920 for sociologists, and $66,140 for social-science research assistants.","These wages provide a public resource-equivalent anchor for staffing estimates, but exclude institution-specific benefits, overhead, community compensation, translation, travel, data governance, and legal review."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Primary fieldwork accounts show that access work consumes time and that community-university liaison roles face trust, translation, workload, and budget burdens. NIH additionally documents unfamiliar authority pathways and serious group harms when community permission is mishandled. The problem is therefore visible and consequential, but no source measures how often comparable ethnographic proposals stall, the distribution of delays, or aggregate all-party burden.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"NIH operates a mandatory consult-and-assistance pathway involving OHSRP, THRO, Tribal Authorities, and IRBs; AIATSIS operates ethics review, guidance, training, and application infrastructure; and the Montana center funded and employed six community-based liaisons. These identify credible adopters, authorizers, and funders with expressed operational need, although no specific institution or community has committed to this candidate's exact pilot.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Montana State University community-university research liaisons","similarity":"Direct role-level match: standing, community-located personnel translated between university and Native communities, maintained relationships, explained protocols, and supported research partnerships across cases.","remaining_difference":"The paper does not establish the candidate's full versioned intake contract, explicit low-risk fast lane, capacity dashboard, ready-state regeneration protocol, or matched turnover-and-selectivity evaluation.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"NIH THRO and Tribal Authority consultation pathway","similarity":"Direct workflow match: an institutional office helps investigators identify applicable Tribal approvals and relevant authorities while preserving separate Tribal and IRB decision rights.","remaining_difference":"It is a policy-compliance and consultation pathway for specified NIH research, not an evaluated general ethnographic liaison service with queue metering, recovery cycles, and all-party labor comparators.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"AIATSIS ethics, application, guidance, template, and training infrastructure","similarity":"Institutionalized interface and review support for research requiring meaningful Indigenous engagement and ethics approval.","remaining_difference":"The public description does not demonstrate a reusable case broker with the candidate's eligibility, rerouting, saturation, regeneration, and counterfactual performance architecture.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"CIOMS community-engagement standard and continuing forum","similarity":"Specifies early and sustained engagement, diverse representation, documented roles, allocated resources, and separation from individual consent.","remaining_difference":"It is a normative standard rather than a staffed fieldwork-entry service, dashboard, or tested acceleration mechanism.","source_ids":["S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Against these established practices, the remaining falsifiable claim is narrow: adding a versioned intake contract, precommitted eligibility and rerouting, visible capacity limits, case-separated recovery checks, and a matched all-party labor/selectivity assay to a community-authorized liaison function will reduce recurring pre-decision labor and elapsed time across multiple comparable cases without changing authority identification, substantive requirements, dispositions, confidentiality, individual consent, community burden, or downstream workload. No searched source establishes that combined incremental effect.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Human liaison roles, cultural translation, institutional consults, documented authority routing, ethics applications, and independent IRB/Tribal review are demonstrably implementable. The proposed shadow exercise is technically simple and reversible. Feasibility remains conditional on access to closed records, community and institutional authorization, lawful de-identification, locally legitimate authority mapping, compensated reviewers, confidentiality controls, workload limits, and an ordinary-pathway fallback. The sources do not validate the proposed dashboard, recovery criteria, eligibility classifier, performance threshold, or scalability across distinct communities.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"The intervention addresses documented access burden and potentially serious authority and group-harm failures, but prevalence and effect magnitude are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Operational NIH and AIATSIS structures and a funded liaison program demonstrate strong institutional pull; no named partner has requested this exact implementation.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"The core liaison and authority-routing functions already exist. Advantage is limited to the untested operating controls, observability, recovery, and comparative assay.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"A distinctive combined protocol is plausible, but its principal components are adjacent to established liaison, ethics, engagement, and compliance practices; world novelty is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The service is organizationally and technically feasible using established liaison and review workflows, provided secure records, staffing, and escalation paths are available.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Universities can authorize administrative support, but each community retains its own authority and the shadow evaluation may require ethics and data approvals. No local agreement is evidenced.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"A small matched shadow study is well bounded, but decisive evidence requires proprietary archived cases and live community and ethics reviewers rather than further public-web research.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The design preserves denial, reroutes ambiguity to bespoke review, separates liaison from authority, and can revert cases to the ordinary pathway. These safeguards align with professional and regulatory requirements.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Templates and intake controls may replicate, but trust, language, authority, deliberation pace, and liaison labor remain community-specific; the closest implementation reports heavy workload and limited budgets.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S6"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Pre-registration and a shadow reconstruction of at most eight closed, de-identified cases, including archive preparation, liaison time, two independent reviewer panels, limited community honoraria or translation, analysis, and a short report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 200-450 total labor hours using existing institutional infrastructure.","No prospective participant contact, travel-intensive engagement, new software platform, or extensive legal dispute.","Institutional loaded labor rates are approximately 1.5-2 times direct wages; community review and translation are compensated.","If records require substantial remediation or bespoke legal review, the cost may cross into 50K_TO_250K."],"source_ids":["S2","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Community co-design, authority and escalation mapping, agreements, privacy and records design, intake contract, conflict procedures, workflow configuration, training, and readiness review for one institution and a small number of participating bodies.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Uses configurable institutional tools rather than custom enterprise software.","Requires roughly 0.5-1.5 staff-years plus compensated community design and legal or ethics review.","Scope is limited to one institution and does not create a universal authority registry."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"A separately authorized one-year live pilot with roughly two to four liaison, coordination, research, or supervisory FTE-equivalents, community compensation, translation, training, secure records, audit, evaluation, and ordinary-pathway coverage.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Loaded compensation is based on the BLS occupational anchors plus benefits and institutional overhead.","Community representatives are compensated and their workload is counted rather than treated as free capacity.","Case volume, language mix, travel, dispute frequency, and security requirements are unknown.","No multi-campus software build or litigation is included."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"A small standing service covering liaison staffing, supervision and succession, community honoraria, translation, relationship maintenance, refresher training, secure records, monitoring, audits, recovery time, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately two to four ongoing FTE-equivalents with protected recovery and backup capacity.","Costs do not include research-project expenses, IRB operations, or community decision bodies' full underlying governance costs.","Demand is metered; this is not a high-volume centralized service.","Local compensation, travel, languages, and institutional overhead can materially change the range."],"source_ids":["S2","S6","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Multiple primary and official sources independently show time-consuming access work, difficult authority navigation, liaison workload, and consequential harms from inadequate community engagement, although prevalence remains unquantified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"NIH OHSRP/THRO, Tribal Authorities, AIATSIS ethics infrastructure, and the funded Montana liaison program are identifiable and operationally credible actors.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate specifies a measurable contrast against ordinary decentralized entry: reduced all-party reconstruction labor and time under unchanged authority, standards, dispositions, consent, confidentiality, and burden.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A maximum eight-case, pre-registered, closed-record shadow exercise has a defined comparator, limited data scope, independent reviewers, rollback conditions, and explicit falsifiers.","source_ids":["S3","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The proposed safeguards are credible, but no named community, institution, IRB, data steward, or records custodian has authorized access to the closed cases or the shadow evaluation. De-identification may not remove culturally sensitive or group-identifying information.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four ranges are scoped and anchored to current federal occupational wages and documented liaison workload, with explicit exclusions and low confidence where local costs dominate.","source_ids":["S2","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"After written approval from the records custodian, relevant community authority, and institutional ethics or privacy office, pre-register a paired shadow study of no more than eight closed cases selected before outcomes are examined. Reconstruct each case using only information available at the historical step and compare the proposed lane with the archived ordinary process on all-party labor, clarification count, elapsed pre-decision time, authority route, rerouting, disposition, community burden, confidentiality, and readiness recovery. Advance only if median all-party pre-decision labor falls by at least 20%, no more than one case lacks sufficient records for attribution, community-side labor does not rise by more than 10%, and independent community and ethics reviewers find no authority error, unexplained disposition difference, weakened requirement, confidentiality breach, or inappropriate fast-track decision. Any such safety or authority event, hidden labor transfer, or failure to achieve the labor threshold falsifies the near-term incremental claim; the shadow result would justify only consideration of a separately authorized live pilot.","blocking_evidence":["No quantitative estimate of the prevalence, baseline cycle time, repeated clarification burden, or lapsed-proposal rate for the target population.","No institution or community body has committed to adopt, authorize, fund, or supply records for the proposed probe.","No matched evidence shows that the additional controls outperform an existing liaison, THRO-style consult, ethics office, checklist, or decentralized process.","The availability and validity of all-party labor, community-burden, authority-route, complaint, withdrawal, and downstream-workload data in closed cases are unknown.","Eligibility accuracy, disparate access effects, liaison recovery thresholds, succession needs, and live-case safety require proprietary data or prospective testing.","Local legal, privacy, Indigenous data-governance, language, compensation, travel, and insurance requirements are unresolved.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes community-university research liaisons, cultural facilitators, institutional community-engagement standards, ethics-support infrastructure, and formal assistance routing researchers to separate community and IRB authorities. It does not establish whether the exact combination of a versioned fieldwork-entry contract, low-risk eligibility lane, capacity dashboard, formal staff regeneration, and matched turnover/selectivity assay has previously been implemented. No conclusion is made about world novelty, patents, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure a named university unit, participating community authority, records custodian, and ethics or privacy authorization for the closed-case shadow exercise.","Pre-register case selection, ordinary-process comparator, labor accounting, community-burden accounting, authority and disposition review, and the stated pass and kill thresholds.","Complete the eight-case shadow study and publish results for all cases, including missing data, reroutes, complaints, authority errors, burden transfers, and reviewer disagreements.","Demonstrate an incremental benefit over existing liaison, consult, ethics-office, and template practices rather than merely reproducing them.","Before any live pilot, establish compensated community participation, confidentiality and deletion rules, conflict disclosure, staff workload and recovery limits, succession, ordinary-pathway fallback, and independent halt authority."],"reason":"Bounded web research answers the existence, stakeholder, prior-art, standards, workflow, and broad-cost questions. The central incremental-effect and safety claims cannot be verified on the public web: they require authorized access to proprietary closed-case records and judgments by the relevant community and ethics authorities, followed eventually by live testing. Because the core liaison model is already established practice, empirical evidence must show that the proposed control architecture adds material value without shifting labor or authority."},"proposal_index":1}