{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__religious_studies_theology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"prp-doctrinal-draft-consequence-review-002","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Prediction-Residual Review for Doctrinal Draft Consequences","problem":"A theological commission revising a confession, teaching statement, liturgical standard, or other internally authoritative document must examine how a proposed claim affects many connected commitments. Much of a draft may restate inherited positions, while a small wording change can alter qualifications, implied conclusions, or relationships among doctrinal loci. Sequential rereading and word-level redlining preserve the document but do not reliably distinguish expected restatement from unacknowledged semantic consequence. Reviewers can therefore spend scarce deliberative attention on repeated material while subtle omissions, tensions, or unintended implications remain unresolved.","actors":["Members of the formally constituted theological drafting commission","Theologians responsible for affected doctrinal loci","Clergy, educators, or practitioners asked to assess downstream use","Representatives or advisors for communities materially affected by the statement","Document archivists and model stewards","The religious body or institution holding final adoption authority"],"observable_state":"For each authorized revision episode, reviewers can observe the prior officially designated commitment set, the proposed draft, explicit claim-to-locus mappings, versioned relationship assertions among commitments, independent reviewer interpretations, residual dossiers, full-context expansions, model disagreements, fallback events, review time, and the disposition of each raised issue. The relevant condition exists only if a scoped model can predict substantial portions of the draft's descriptive commitment profile before reviewers inspect the corresponding text; doctrinal truth itself is not an observable model target.","consequence":"If inherited material and potentially consequential changes receive the same review treatment, deliberation may be consumed by repetition while implicit conflicts, changed qualifications, or effects on practice receive insufficient examination. Conversely, an overconfident model could present one theological interpretation as the expected norm and suppress legitimate internal plurality. Either failure can reduce the traceability of adoption decisions and leave affected communities unable to determine whether a consequence was considered.","affected_objective":"Concentrate authorized theological deliberation on validated, model-relative changes and unresolved consequences while preserving complete-text review, explicit contestability, plural interpretive mappings, provenance, and exclusive human authority over doctrinal judgment and adoption.","intervention":"Create a read-only consequence-review workspace for one bounded revision episode. Before the draft is examined, authorized curators freeze a versioned generative model containing the institution's explicitly designated prior commitments, their source provenance, known qualifications, contested interpretations, and confidence-tagged relationships. The prediction target is the treatment expected at each affected doctrinal locus given the prior commitment state and the draft's declared change; it is not a prediction of religious truth, orthodoxy, divine intent, or community sincerity. Independent human reviewers then map the actual draft language and plausible implications to the same loci. A structured comparator records confirmations, substitutions, omissions, altered qualifications, unexpected entailments, contradictions, ambiguities, and disagreements between interpretive models. A precision-and-consequence gate prioritizes residuals using relationship confidence, source status, reviewer agreement, reversibility, practical consequence, and affected-community concern rather than textual difference alone. The receiver reconstructs the complete commitment profile from the matching model version plus residuals, while every residual links to the uncollapsed draft and prior sources. High-level commitments predict lower-level implications through an explicit hierarchy; unresolved errors move to the relevant specialist and then to the commission. Validated errors may correct mappings or uncertainty immediately, but the baseline commitment model changes only after the authorized body adopts a revision. Random draft sections, all contested mappings, and every rights-, discipline-, safeguarding-, or community-impact passage receive full review through an independent path. Version mismatch, low confidence, systematic model disagreement, missing provenance, audit failure, or cumulative semantic error suspends residual presentation and restores complete section-by-section review.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Prediction target definition","domain_realization":"For each declared draft change, predict the expected descriptive treatment of explicitly connected doctrinal loci and practical implications within one institution and revision episode."},{"archetype_element":"Generative model state","domain_realization":"A versioned graph of officially designated prior commitments, sources, qualifications, contested readings, and confidence-tagged relationships; it represents the current review baseline, not religious truth."},{"archetype_element":"Model scope and horizon","domain_realization":"The model is limited to the named institution, document family, prior-state cutoff, declared loci, and one revision cycle; it cannot be generalized across traditions or used to classify persons."},{"archetype_element":"Predictive feedforward model","domain_realization":"Before the corresponding draft section is reviewed, higher-level commitments generate expected treatments and implications for connected lower-level loci."},{"archetype_element":"Expected behavior","domain_realization":"A provenance-linked expected commitment profile specifying anticipated confirmations, qualifications, and consequences with uncertainty."},{"archetype_element":"Actual behavior","domain_realization":"The draft's observed claims and implications as independently mapped by human reviewers to exact text spans, with disagreement retained."},{"archetype_element":"Prediction comparator","domain_realization":"A structured comparison preserving direction and type: confirmation, omission, substitution, changed qualification, unexpected entailment, contradiction, ambiguity, or interpretive disagreement."},{"archetype_element":"Prediction-error signal","domain_realization":"A residual dossier containing the mismatch, affected loci, competing interpretations, confidence, source links, model version, and the decision requiring attention."},{"archetype_element":"Precision weighting","domain_realization":"Residual priority combines evidential confidence, provenance status, inter-reviewer agreement, practical consequence, reversibility, and affected-community concern."},{"archetype_element":"Residual propagation channel","domain_realization":"Residuals move first to the responsible locus specialist and then, if unresolved or consequential, to the commission with acknowledgement and ownership."},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction and synchronization","domain_realization":"The workspace rebuilds the full descriptive commitment profile only against the model version that generated the residuals and always permits opening the complete draft and cited sources."},{"archetype_element":"Update rule","domain_realization":"Reviewers may correct mappings and uncertainty during analysis, but only an authorized adoption decision creates a new baseline commitment-model version."},{"archetype_element":"Drift and validity control","domain_realization":"New source policies, changed drafting scope, accumulated structured residuals, model disagreement, or an expired baseline invalidate predictive mode."},{"archetype_element":"Residual error budget","domain_realization":"No mandatory-review passage may be collapsed, and cumulative omissions, contested reconstructions, and unsupported relationship predictions must remain within a predeclared semantic-error tolerance."},{"archetype_element":"Raw-signal audit sample","domain_realization":"Independent reviewers inspect randomly selected complete sections plus every contested or high-consequence section without seeing residual rankings first."},{"archetype_element":"Safety-critical bypass and fallback","domain_realization":"Passages affecting rights, discipline, safeguarding, membership, pastoral treatment, or community standing bypass suppression; validity failures return the entire affected scope to full review."},{"archetype_element":"Attention and bandwidth budget","domain_realization":"The scarce resource is specialist and commission deliberation time, measured together with modeling, mapping, audit, dispute-resolution, and fallback costs."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"hierarchical_prediction_error_loop","role":"High-level commitments predict expected treatments at connected doctrinal and practical loci; only implications not explained at a lower layer move upward for specialist or commission deliberation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the layered prediction-error loop, the workspace becomes a flat list of differences and cannot trace how a local wording change creates an unresolved higher-order consequence."},{"mechanism_slug":"predictive_codec","role":"The workspace represents the draft's descriptive commitment profile as a version-matched expected profile plus structured residuals, while retaining direct access to the complete prose.","counterfactual_removal":"Without expectation-plus-correction reconstruction, residuals would be detachable alerts rather than a governed alternative representation of the complete profile."},{"mechanism_slug":"precision_weighted_error_gate","role":"It allocates review attention by confidence, provenance, consequence, reversibility, disagreement, and affected-community concern while logging every collapsed item.","counterfactual_removal":"Without consequence-aware precision weighting, cosmetic wording changes could overwhelm the queue while small but well-supported or high-stakes implications remain buried."},{"mechanism_slug":"model_version_checksum_handshake","role":"It verifies that draft mappings, residuals, and reviewer reconstructions use the same prior commitment graph, source cutoff, and relationship set.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a version handshake, a residual could be interpreted against a changed theological baseline and silently produce a false reconstruction."},{"mechanism_slug":"residual_comparison_test","role":"It compares residuals from the primary commitment graph with at least one documented alternative interpretation and with complete-text reviewer findings to expose systematic misspecification.","counterfactual_removal":"Without rival-model and full-text comparison, one curatorial theology could define its own residuals and then treat their apparent coherence as validation."},{"mechanism_slug":"bayesian_model_update","role":"Human-validated evidence revises confidence in descriptive relationship mappings while retaining alternative hypotheses and uncertainty; adopted commitments create the next prior state.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an uncertainty-bearing update, disputed relations would harden into binary rules or recurring errors would never revise the model."},{"mechanism_slug":"prediction_error_review","role":"A standing review classifies each material residual as a drafting, mapping, source, scope, practical-consequence, or genuine theological-disagreement issue before deciding its disposition.","counterfactual_removal":"Without structured error review, surfaced mismatches would not reliably change the draft, model, scope, or recorded rationale."},{"mechanism_slug":"shadow_raw_channel_sampling","role":"Independent reviewers examine randomly selected and risk-stratified complete draft sections without residual cues and compare their concerns with the reconstructed profile.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an independent full-text channel, the model could systematically suppress an interpretive issue that none of its own residuals can reveal."},{"mechanism_slug":"raw_signal_fallback_switch","role":"It disables residual-only presentation for low-confidence, sensitive, mismatched, stale, or audit-failing scopes and restores complete section-by-section review.","counterfactual_removal":"Without fallback, reviewers would remain dependent on a compressed representation precisely when its theological assumptions or provenance are least reliable."},{"mechanism_slug":"surprise_to_action_bridge","role":"Each validated residual is assigned to a named locus specialist or the commission with the complete context and a defined action: clarify, obtain another interpretation, revise, explicitly accept, or return to full review.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an owned action path, residuals could accumulate as interesting annotations without affecting deliberation or documenting acceptance."}],"causal_chain":["Authorized curators freeze a versioned, scope-bounded model of designated prior commitments, qualifications, sources, and contested relationships.","The model generates an expected treatment of connected doctrinal loci before reviewers inspect the corresponding draft sections.","Independent human mapping supplies the observed claim and implication profile with exact textual provenance.","The comparator converts expected-versus-observed differences into typed residuals rather than undifferentiated alerts.","Precision, confidence, consequence, reversibility, disagreement, and community concern determine which residuals receive scarce specialist attention first.","Version-compatible expectations plus residuals reconstruct the complete descriptive commitment profile, and reviewers expand the full prose and sources before judgment.","Unresolved lower-level errors propagate to the responsible specialist and then to the commission with explicit ownership and disposition options.","Independent complete-section audits test what the predictive representation suppressed and can force decompression.","Validated review findings correct mappings or narrow scope; only an authorized adoption decision updates the baseline commitment state.","The intervention continues only while reconstruction, audit coverage, governance protections, and net deliberative cost remain within declared bounds."],"baseline":"The comparator workflow is complete sequential review of every draft section by the same specialists, accompanied by a word-level redline against the predecessor document and an ordinary issues log. It uses identical sources, authority rules, research questions, and full-text access but no generative commitment graph, residual reconstruction, or prediction-based prioritization.","nearest_rivals":["Word-level redlining, which identifies textual edits but cannot predict unstated doctrinal consequences, represent uncertainty, or distinguish semantic restatement from material change.","A doctrinal checklist, which ensures named topics are visited but does not generate context-sensitive expectations, carry typed residuals, reconstruct a complete commitment profile, or learn from validated misses.","A static argument or dependency map, which displays asserted relationships but does not predict the incoming draft, route model-relative errors, synchronize versions, or trigger raw fallback.","Rule-based consistency checking, which can flag predefined contradictions but lacks plural interpretations, uncertainty-weighted routing, independent raw audits, and authorized model revision.","Conventional specialist peer review, which preserves human judgment but leaves expectations, thresholds, suppressed issues, model disagreement, and the learning loop largely implicit."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's testable distinction is the coordinated use of a pre-review generative commitment model, hierarchical semantic residuals, consequence-weighted routing, version-compatible profile reconstruction, human-validated updating, independent complete-text audits, and automatic full-review fallback. If the system merely redlines text, applies fixed consistency rules, or presents alerts without reconstruction and model correction, it does not instantiate the proposed causal architecture.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The religious body or institution's formally constituted authority alone may define designated commitments and adopt revisions. The drafting commission controls review dispositions within its mandate. Affected-community representatives may require full-context review or contest a mapping. Model stewards maintain versions but possess no doctrinal, disciplinary, pastoral, or adoption authority.","authorized_first_step":"Conduct a read-only retrospective shadow test on one completed, already authorized revision archive using only materials and permissions available to the original reviewers; do not alter the adopted document, current commitment baseline, access policy, or institutional practice.","excluded_actions":["No automated determination of truth, revelation, orthodoxy, heresy, authenticity, sincerity, or religious worth","No classification, discipline, membership decision, employment action, pastoral action, or adverse inference concerning any person or community","No model shared across traditions or institutions as a universal doctrinal baseline","No suppression of passages concerning rights, safeguarding, discipline, membership, pastoral treatment, or materially affected communities","No expansion of access to confidential, sacred, privileged, or restricted deliberative records","No baseline update from a draft, residual, or reviewer preference before formally authorized adoption","No replacement of full-text specialist review where provenance, interpretation, or model scope is disputed","No threshold tuning whose primary purpose is achieving a preferred queue size or adoption timetable"],"halt_rollback":"Disable predictive presentation for the affected scope upon any restricted-content exposure, unsupported source claim, mandatory-bypass miss, checksum mismatch, unresolvable interpretive-model disagreement, systematic audit miss, discriminatory reconstruction pattern, or excess total review cost. Restore complete section-by-section review, freeze all model updates, preserve the versioned trace, notify the governing authority and affected data stewards, and require an explicit scope-and-safeguard review before resumption."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Blinded complete-text reviewers repeatedly identify materially relevant qualifications, practical consequences, or legitimate internal interpretations inside sections the residual workspace classified as expected, while residual-led reviewers fail to recover them even after opening the supplied context; the misses align with the curators' theological assumptions or with particular affected communities.","problem_falsifier":"Observation of the scoped revision process shows that nearly every section presents genuinely new deliberative questions, inherited material does not consume meaningful specialist attention, doctrinal consequences are not predictable from an explicit prior-state model, or ordinary full review plus redlining already localizes the relevant issues without an attention bottleneck.","intervention_falsifier":"On temporally held-out revision material, the expectation-plus-residual representation fails the predeclared commitment-profile reconstruction tolerance, misses any mandatory-review implication, produces systematic errors for a documented interpretive position or affected community, cannot maintain version compatibility, or costs at least as much total deliberative effort as the full-review baseline after modeling, audits, disputes, and fallback are counted.","risks":["The frozen commitment graph may convert one faction's interpretation into an apparently neutral institutional baseline.","Formal relationships among doctrines may be too contested or context-dependent for reliable prediction.","Residual prioritization may overvalue inconsistency and undervalue deliberate mystery, ambiguity, silence, or unresolved plurality.","A semantic residual can reveal sensitive internal disagreements more sharply than the complete draft does.","Reviewers may anchor on the predicted profile and overlook meanings not represented by its loci or relationship types.","Repeated model updates may normalize gradual doctrinal change before the institution has explicitly recognized it.","The system may mistake drafting ambiguity, translation choices, or genre conventions for theological disagreement.","A compact residual queue may encourage premature resolution of questions that require slow, complete deliberation.","Metrics such as residual count or review time may become governance targets and distort theological judgment.","A model trained on prior authoritative texts may systematically underrepresent emerging concerns or communities previously absent from deliberation."]},"next_evidence_step":"Choose one completed revision episode whose drafts, prior commitment sources, review comments, permissions, and final dispositions are already available to the authorized institution. Establish a temporal cutoff and build the commitment graph only from materials predating the first draft. Freeze two documented interpretive mappings where the archive supports disagreement. Select 24 draft sections: use 12 to define the descriptive relation vocabulary and reserve 12 untouched sections for testing. Before revealing review comments or final dispositions, generate expected commitment profiles and residual dossiers for the held-out sections. Assign matched reviewers to residual-led and complete-text conditions, counterbalance section order, and require both groups to reconstruct the full descriptive profile, identify implications, state uncertainty, and open full context before conclusions. A separate panel reviews a random subset and every mandatory-bypass section in full without residual cues. Record reconstruction disagreements, issues found only by full review, issues found only through residual propagation, context expansions, interpretive-model divergence, fallback use, review time, and governance incidents. Use the results solely to reject the intervention, revise its scope and safeguards, or authorize another bounded shadow test.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addressed first-pass scholarly analysis of recurrent ritual records: it predicted descriptive event sequences in an existing corpus so researchers could find historically or locally significant variants. This proposal addresses an independently adoptable problem inside a live but bounded theological drafting process: tracing the unstated consequences of proposed doctrinal language across a versioned commitment hierarchy before institutional adoption. Its prediction unit is a doctrinal-locus treatment rather than a ritual event; its primary actors are drafting and adopting authorities rather than comparative corpus researchers; its causal path propagates unresolved implications through a commitment graph rather than foregrounding variants in repeated records; and its outcome is accountable revision deliberation rather than comparative source analysis. It requires neither the ritual corpus, its coding model, nor its review interface.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}