{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__sociology_anthropology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"cpe_sa_p01_regenerative_fieldwork_entry_service","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Regenerative Fieldwork Entry Service for Community-Authorized Ethnography","problem":"For each proposed ethnographic field site, researchers and community representatives repeatedly reconstruct the same preliminary work: identifying legitimate contacts, translating research aims into locally meaningful terms, distinguishing institutional ethics approval from community permission, documenting expectations, and routing unresolved concerns. Even when a mutually acceptable fieldwork arrangement is possible, this recurring trust, search, and translation burden can stall a proposal before an authorized decision is reached. Informal reliance on a well-connected individual can help some cases but makes access opaque, exhausts that person, and risks mistaking brokerage for authority.","actors":["Ethnographic researchers and research teams","Community organizations, councils, custodians, or other locally recognized representatives","People who may be observed, interviewed, or otherwise affected by fieldwork","A standing fieldwork-entry liaison team","University research ethics or institutional review personnel","Departmental research administrators","Independent community advocate or appeal contact","Downstream data stewards and fieldwork supervisors"],"observable_state":"Eligible fieldwork-entry requests arrive as incomplete, differently formatted proposals; repeated clarification messages concern the same categories; researchers search independently for recognized contacts; community representatives repeatedly explain decision procedures and local constraints; elapsed time to an authorized yes, no, or revise decision is long or highly variable; liaison workload, queue depth, reroutes, withdrawals, complaints, and unresolved conflicts are not jointly visible.","consequence":"Researchers and communities spend attention rebuilding an interface rather than deliberating about the particular study. Some feasible proposals lapse without a decision, while better-connected researchers may advance through informal routes. Overloaded intermediaries may become bottlenecks or discretionary gatekeepers, and hurried processing may blur the distinction among institutional ethics approval, organizational cooperation, and authorization by affected communities or individuals.","affected_objective":"Reduce the recurring coordination and translation burden required to reach a documented, legitimate fieldwork-entry decision while preserving independent ethics review, locally recognized authority, individual consent, refusal rights, contextual deliberation, and the possibility of denial.","intervention":"Establish a small standing fieldwork-entry liaison service that maintains a versioned intake-and-translation contract with participating community bodies. For an eligible low-risk request, the service checks readiness, identifies the relevant decision holders, prepares a neutral bilingual or locally intelligible briefing packet, convenes the required exchange, records questions and conditions, then releases the case to the bodies that already possess decision authority. The liaison is reused across cases but cannot approve research, manufacture consent, or select a favorable representative. Intake is metered to declared active capacity; complex, contested, high-risk, or authority-ambiguous cases leave the facilitated lane for full bespoke engagement. After each case, the team closes records, discloses conflicts, debriefs with the parties, updates only generally authorized interface material, rests or rotates staff, and confirms readiness before accepting another case.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform a prepared fieldwork-entry request into a documented decision by the appropriate ethics and community authorities: approve engagement, deny it, or return specified revisions. The target is a legitimate decision, not approval."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier","domain_realization":"Repeated search for legitimate contacts, translation of scholarly aims and community concerns, reconstruction of standard evidence, trust initiation, and coordination of a decision sequence."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"A standing, compensated, conflict-audited liaison team that retains procedural knowledge and maintained relationships across cases without becoming a party to the research or the source of permission."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A published, versioned intake contract specifies required study summary, proposed activities, affected groups, risk flags, languages, data plans, prior relationships, requested decision, and known authority boundaries."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"Only requests within pre-agreed study types and with identifiable decision routes enter the facilitated lane; contested authority, sensitive populations, covert methods, unresolved risk, or emergent conflict triggers bespoke review."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover cycle","domain_realization":"One cycle runs from readiness check through neutral translation, convening, handoff, documented disposition, case closure, and liaison recovery. Completed decisions per staffed cycle are counted together with reroutes, errors, complaints, and staff load."},{"archetype_element":"Regeneration","domain_realization":"Case-specific confidences are closed rather than reused; reusable materials are corrected only through governed review; conflicts are cleared; relationships are checked; staff receive debriefing, rest, rotation, and refresher authorization before returning to ready status."},{"archetype_element":"Saturation and inhibition","domain_realization":"Queue depth, cycle time, staff occupancy, authority disputes, repeat clarifications, conflict disclosures, translation failures, emotional load, and community-response capacity distinguish excessive inflow from degraded facilitator activity."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"The service reduces avoidable coordination work but does not bypass ethics review, collective decision procedures, individual informed consent, refusal, safeguarding, data governance, or continuing community oversight."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality","domain_realization":"A liaison can accelerate arrival at a legitimate decision only where a permissible arrangement is already possible; it cannot resolve incompatible objectives, create representative authority, or make an unacceptable study acceptable."},{"archetype_element":"Downstream capacity","domain_realization":"Facilitated entries are paced to the ability of community representatives, ethics reviewers, supervisors, and data stewards to deliberate and oversee the resulting fieldwork."},{"archetype_element":"Deactivation","domain_realization":"Admissions pause if authority is misidentified, standards are weakened, conflicts are concealed, community burden rises beyond agreed limits, staff recovery fails, or complaints and off-path outcomes cross precommitted thresholds."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"reusable_broker_or_convener_service","role":"Maintains the cross-boundary relationships and translation pathway reused for successive entry requests, under published neutrality, access, conflict, compensation, and succession rules.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the standing broker, each case must rebuild contacts and trust independently, or depend on opaque personal networks; the defining reusable facilitator disappears."},{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Defines what a request must provide, what the liaison returns, which authorities decide, and which protections remain invariant.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a stable interface, the liaison renegotiates inputs and outputs case by case, so repeated interpretation burden remains and scope can drift silently."},{"mechanism_slug":"fast_track_with_eligibility_rules","role":"Restricts the facilitated pathway to pre-agreed, sufficiently prepared cases and reroutes uncertainty to bespoke engagement without lowering the substantive standard.","counterfactual_removal":"Without eligibility and rerouting, incompatible or contested cases occupy the service, erode selectivity, and invite rubber-stamping."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Displays admitted cases, queue depth, staff contact time, cycle time, recovery status, reroutes, repeat clarifications, and community-side load so intake can be matched to active capacity.","counterfactual_removal":"Without joint capacity observability, saturation can be mistaken for staff underperformance and additional inflow can deepen queues or degrade judgment."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Requires case closure, confidentiality separation, conflict review, material refresh, relationship maintenance, staff debriefing, rest, rotation, and retirement or replacement when readiness is not restored.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration, accumulated emotional load, stale templates, unresolved conflicts, and relationship damage make nominally reusable liaison capacity progressively less reliable."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Compares decision-cycle time and repeated coordination work with a defined baseline while measuring reroutes, authority errors, quality deviations, complaints, unequal access, withdrawals, and staff or community burden.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a counterfactual and the full outcome distribution, faster approvals or easier case selection could be misattributed to catalytic barrier reduction."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Tests the pathway first on bounded cases with precommitted pass, pause, and rollback criteria, including the possibility that it produces no usable acceleration.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a contained probe, interface and authority errors would first appear during consequential live fieldwork decisions and would be harder to reverse."}],"causal_chain":["Recurring fieldwork-entry cases each incur similar search, translation, trust-initiation, evidence-formatting, and sequencing burdens.","A governed liaison team accumulates reusable procedural knowledge and maintained relationships, while participating authorities define a stable intake and handoff contract.","Eligibility checks admit only prepared cases whose authority route and risk class fit the contract; ambiguous or sensitive cases are rerouted.","The liaison converts the prepared request into a mutually intelligible briefing and convenes the recognized parties without deciding for them.","Decision holders receive comparable information with less repeated setup work and issue an approve, deny, or revise disposition under unchanged substantive rules.","The liaison releases the case, records quality and side-path outcomes, closes confidential material, and completes recovery and conflict checks.","Capacity and degradation signals govern later admissions, so reuse can continue only while selectivity, staff welfare, community burden, and downstream capacity remain within the agreed envelope."],"baseline":"The credible baseline is ordinary decentralized entry practice under the same ethics, community-authorization, consent, and data-governance requirements: each research team identifies contacts, explains the study, assembles materials, and coordinates decisions independently, with any existing administrative assistance recorded. Comparison must hold case eligibility and substantive standards constant and count researcher time, community time, liaison resources, decision cycle time, disposition, revisions, withdrawals, complaints, authority errors, and downstream workload.","nearest_rivals":["A static fieldwork-entry checklist or template: it may reduce formatting work, but without a reusable steward, live translation, bounded capacity, and regeneration it is an informational aid rather than the complete catalytic cycle.","Additional ethics or administrative staff: this expands bulk review capacity; it is a rival if throughput changes mainly because more labor is supplied in proportion to cases.","Permanent simplification of community or ethics review: this removes procedural requirements and may be ordinary barrier lowering, but it violates the proposal if protective standards or authority are changed.","A one-time relationship-building workshop: it may initiate cooperation or break inertia, but it lacks repeated case turnover and a ready-state restoration cycle.","A general community-engagement office: it is a rival if its mandate is broad support rather than a selective, measurable transformation from prepared request to authorized disposition.","Researcher training in community engagement: it distributes capability to each researcher and may eliminate the need for an enduring intermediary rather than repeatedly reusing one."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal remains catalytic only if a bounded liaison capability is demonstrably reused across multiple comparable cases, lowers recurring setup and coordination burden under unchanged decision standards, releases each case to independent authorities, and returns through an observable recovery cycle. If results instead depend on added case-proportional labor, favorable case selection, weakened review, permanent removal of requirements, or an unmeasured personal network, the catalytic interpretation does not survive.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"Participating community bodies retain authority over their own collective cooperation within their recognized scope; institutional ethics bodies retain institutional approval authority; individual participants retain consent and refusal rights; investigators retain responsibility for study design and conduct. The liaison steward controls only intake to the facilitated service, workload, procedural handoffs, records, and safety pauses.","authorized_first_step":"Subject to ethics and participating-community approval for the evaluation itself, the departmental research administrator may commission a shadow-process exercise using a small set of closed, de-identified cases. The liaison may reconstruct intake, routing, workload, and hypothetical cycle times but may not contact prospective participants, reopen decisions, authorize field access, or alter any archived disposition.","excluded_actions":["Granting or implying community permission, ethics approval, or individual consent","Choosing a convenient spokesperson when legitimate authority is disputed","Fast-tracking covert, high-risk, contested, or otherwise ineligible fieldwork","Waiving substantive ethics, safeguarding, consent, privacy, compensation, or data-governance requirements","Sharing case-confidential information across liaison cycles","Using queue priority, translation, or eligibility rules to favor investigators, institutions, or desired outcomes","Expanding from shadow processing to live case handling without separate authorization and reviewed evidence"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the exercise or later service immediately upon confidentiality breach, material authority misidentification, undisclosed conflict, evidence of standard erosion, participant or community contact outside authorization, or inability to restore staff readiness. Quarantine affected records, notify the relevant data and community authorities, revert all open cases to the ordinary pathway without prejudice, preserve an audit trail, offer correction or deletion where authorized, and require independent review before restart."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Under matched standards and case mix, the liaison adds another handoff without reducing repeated researcher or community work; apparent gains come from processing simpler cases, informal influence over decisions, relaxed scrutiny, or uncounted liaison and community labor. Complaints, authority errors, unequal access, withdrawals, or downstream supervision burden rise even if elapsed time falls.","problem_falsifier":"Observation of ordinary entry cases shows no recurring common barrier suitable for reuse: delay is instead dominated by study-specific ethical conflict, unavailable resources, unresolved representative authority, investigator redesign, or deliberate community deliberation that should not be accelerated.","intervention_falsifier":"Across bounded comparable cases, the facilitated pathway does not reduce pre-decision reconstruction or cycle time after all labor and eligibility differences are counted, cannot complete repeated cycles without accumulating unresolved load, or fails to preserve dispositions, substantive standards, authority accuracy, and side-effect limits.","risks":["The liaison becomes a gatekeeper or extracts deference from dependence on its relationships.","Eligibility rules reproduce unequal access by rewarding researchers already able to prepare polished requests.","A single liaison's departure collapses relational capacity or exposes confidential knowledge.","Communities bear increased meeting and translation demands while university-side time appears to fall.","Neutral translation subtly reframes objections into administratively convenient categories.","Faster entry creates more fieldwork than supervisors, data stewards, or community monitors can oversee.","Standardized materials force culturally or politically distinct cases into an invalid common form.","Dashboard metrics incentivize fast favorable dispositions rather than careful legitimate decisions.","Repeated exposure to contested cases causes fatigue, moral distress, or impaired judgment.","Stored relationship knowledge or case histories are reused beyond consented purposes."]},"next_evidence_step":"Run a pre-registered shadow-process probe on no more than eight closed, de-identified fieldwork-entry cases selected before outcomes are examined and spanning routine and rerouted examples. Using only information available at each historical step, have the proposed liaison reconstruct the interface, authority route, clarification count, staff and community contact time, hypothetical cycle time, reroute decision, and ready-state recovery requirement. Compare these with the archived ordinary process; have community and ethics reviewers independently score whether substantive requirements, authority boundaries, and dispositions were preserved. Precommit that any confidentiality breach, authority error, unexplained disposition difference, or hidden labor transfer fails the probe. Treat reduced shadow time only as permission to consider a separately authorized live pilot, not as evidence of real-world effect.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed against prior experiment candidates because the task is sealed and prior-art comparison is forbidden. The proposal is derived only from the supplied catalytic archetype, authored mechanisms, and Sociology & Anthropology domain card.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Produce one complete proposal","Preserve the reusable facilitator, selectivity, turnover, saturation, regeneration, and neutrality structure","Specify a concrete Sociology & Anthropology problem and bounded first evidence","Define authority limits, safeguards, counterevidence, and falsifiers"],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version; no parent proposal","Instantiated the substrate as a prepared ethnographic fieldwork-entry request and the output as an authorized approve, deny, or revise disposition","Separated liaison facilitation from community authority, institutional ethics approval, and individual consent"],"operational_changes":["Initial version; no prior operations","Specified eligibility, rerouting, capacity monitoring, case closure, staff recovery, conflict review, succession, and deactivation rules","Limited the first evidence step to authorized shadow processing of closed, de-identified cases"],"evidence_changes":["Prior art remains unsearched","Defined a bounded counterfactual probe measuring all-party labor, timing, authority accuracy, disposition preservation, and side effects"],"claim_changes":["Makes no claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size","Conditions the catalytic interpretation on demonstrated multi-cycle reuse under unchanged substantive standards"]}}