{"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 falsifiable incremental claim that synchronized expected-state-plus-residual review can reduce all-in review effort versus full-packet and ordinary-triage workflows while preserving reconstruction fidelity, consequential-signal recall, and protected-source coverage through audits and fallback."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official guidance and primary research credibly document time, interpretation, selection, and scarce-attention problems in distributed horizon scanning, although the prevalence of redundant packets and resulting latency remains unverified in a particular adopter workflow."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"Government foresight units and networks such as Singapore's Centre for Strategic Futures and Strategic Foresight Network, the UK Government Office for Science, and Rijkswaterstaat are identifiable operators or authorizers of closely related workflows."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Resolving the remaining questions requires proprietary sequential packets, timestamps, workflow budgets, protected-signal labels, authorized reviewers, and local audit and fallback constraints that public research cannot provide."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A steering-group-authorized retrospective shadow study can use an existing-access corpus, preserve baseline packet delivery, make no live routing or strategic decisions, and halt on safety, reconstruction, versioning, audit, or workload failures."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed 200–500-packet, sequential-window, blinded three-arm comparison has frozen expectations, explicit comparators, preregistered metrics, independent adjudication, fault injections, success thresholds, and intervention falsifiers."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO: adopter credibility, incremental testability, bounded testing, safety and authority, and cost scope are supported; the uncertain problem-prevalence gate is precisely addressable through the authorized corpus study."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step is a concrete partner-dependent experiment with specified corpus size, assignments, measurements, thresholds, audit procedures, and stopping rules rather than additional web research or open-ended investigation."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A government or institutional foresight program operating a distributed, recurring horizon-scanning workflow, with a steering group able to authorize retrospective corpus use, recruit blinded reviewers, preserve an independent audit path, define protected-signal rules, and guarantee full-packet fallback.","required_access":"Authorized access to 200–500 sequential historical driver-assessment packets and packet-level timestamps; prior scenario materials for leakage-free expectation freezing; workflow and labor-cost records; qualified blinded reviewers and independent adjudicators; protected-source or safety-class labels; and authority to test logged audit, heartbeat, version-mismatch, and fallback procedures without changing the live workflow.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister a retrospective three-arm shadow evaluation comparing complete packets, complete packets with ordinary tags and priorities, and synchronized expectation-plus-residual cards with logged full-packet fallback. Freeze expectations using only pre-window material, randomly assign blinded reviewers, independently adjudicate findings, audit random and risk-stratified raw packets, inject version and heartbeat failures, and measure all-in time, reconstruction agreement, signal recall, protected-source coverage, false escalation, fallback frequency, and audit disagreement.","success_condition":"The residual arm achieves at least 20% lower fully loaded review time, at least 0.90 reconstructed-state agreement, no more than a five-percentage-point recall loss for adjudicated assumption changes and cross-driver findings, no loss of protected-source recall, and lower total effort after preparation, synchronization, auditing, reconciliation, and fallback are included.","falsification_condition":"Reject the intervention if any safety-class item is suppressed; reconstruction breaches tolerance; protected or underrepresented sources perform worse than full-packet review; silence remains ambiguous; residuals retain systematic unmodeled structure; fallback fails to restore context; or total all-in effort is not lower. The local problem is also falsified if complete packets already fit the review budget and planning window or delays arise from absent evidence or downstream decision blockage rather than intake saturation.","rationale":"This belongs in the narrow empirical-partner lane because credible external evidence establishes the broader attention problem and identifiable adopters, while substantial adjacent prior art makes comparative incremental performance—not further novelty searching—the decisive issue. The proposal preserves a specific contrastive claim, and resolving it genuinely requires an authorized partner's corpus, reviewers, workflow metadata, and governance constraints. The proposed shadow comparison is safe, bounded, comparator-based, and capable of either supporting the claimed advantage or decisively falsifying both the local problem premise and the intervention."}