{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"predictive_residual_processing__futurism_foresight:P1:v0","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__futurism_foresight","proposal_index":1,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific falsifiable incremental claim: synchronized expected-state-plus-residual review will lower fully loaded review effort while remaining non-inferior to full-packet and ordinary-triage workflows on reconstruction, material-signal recall, and protected-source coverage."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official guidance and primary research credibly document time, attention, interpretation, and signal-selection difficulties in distributed foresight, although the proposal's setting-specific redundancy and latency prevalence remains unverified."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"Government foresight units and agency early-warning networks are concrete adopter classes with steering groups or boards able to authorize corpus access, reviewer participation, audit procedures, and shadow evaluation."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The decisive uncertainties require proprietary packet histories, timestamps, workflow costs, protected-signal adjudication, and human reviewer performance; ordinary public research cannot resolve them."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is a retrospective, read-only shadow comparison on an authorized historical corpus, preserving baseline delivery, existing permissions, full packets, protected-signal safeguards, and explicit halt conditions without changing scenarios or live decisions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed 200–500-packet, sequential-window, blinded three-arm study has frozen expectations, explicit comparators, preregistered effort and non-inferiority thresholds, independent adjudication, audit sampling, fault injections, and intervention falsifiers."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO: adopter credibility, incremental testability, bounded evidence, safety and authority, and cost scope are supported; only setting-specific problem prevalence remains uncertain and is directly testable."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step specifies the corpus, experimental arms, reviewer assignment, metrics, thresholds, safeguards, and falsification rules rather than requesting additional general investigation."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A government or institutional foresight unit operating a distributed horizon-scanning workflow, with a steering group able to authorize retrospective packet access, recruit blinded reviewers, designate protected-signal classes, and staff an independent audit path.","required_access":"Authorized access to 200–500 sequential historical driver-assessment packets, packet-level timestamps and workflow metadata, prior scenario materials for freezing expectations, qualified reviewers and independent adjudicators, protected-source labels or adjudication authority, and labor-time data for fully loaded cost measurement.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister and run a retrospective three-arm blinded study comparing complete packets, complete packets with ordinary tags and priorities, and synchronized expectation-plus-residual cards with logged full-packet fallback. Measure total review and maintenance time, reconstruction agreement, recall of assumption changes and cross-driver findings, protected-source recall, false escalations, fallback frequency, audit disagreement, and response to injected version and heartbeat failures.","success_condition":"The residual arm achieves at least 20% lower fully loaded total effort, at least 0.90 structured-state reconstruction agreement, no more than a five-percentage-point recall loss for adjudicated assumption changes and cross-driver findings, no loss in protected-source recall, and effective logged fallback within all preregistered safety tolerances.","falsification_condition":"Reject the intervention if the setting lacks material redundancy or review-budget pressure; any safety-class item is suppressed; reconstruction breaches tolerance; protected or underrepresented sources perform worse than full-packet review; material-signal recall exceeds the allowed loss; fallback fails to restore context; or preparation, synchronization, audit, reconciliation, adjudication, and fallback eliminate the effort advantage.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner candidate because credible domain evidence and identifiable authorizers exist, the governed residual architecture retains a testable difference from adjacent practice, and the unresolved questions are inherently partner-specific and empirical. Qualification depends on executing the bounded shadow comparison, not on novelty claims or further web research."}