{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__futurism_foresight:P2:v0","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__futurism_foresight","proposal_index":2,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The falsifiable claim is that a Delphi-specific, representation-independent behavioral contract makes independent implementations agree on eligibility, response, withdrawal, closure, aggregation, feedback, error, and identity-access observations while rejecting seeded semantic violations; adjacent platforms, reporting guidance, and ODM do not provide that cross-implementation oracle."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Government and biomedical evidence shows consequential Delphi use across online platforms and spreadsheets, along with substantial variation and poor transparency in method execution. Direct migration-incident prevalence is absent, but the underlying state-preservation problem is credible."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A national public-health agency running Delphi exercises is a concrete adopter class, with an identifiable study sponsor or program manager, Delphi method owner, and data-protection officer able to approve protocol semantics and identity controls."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The contract cannot validly derive contested withdrawal, aggregation, feedback, and identity-recovery semantics from software design alone. Agency method-owner and privacy-authority access is necessary to supply an approved protocol, authorize the synthetic test, reconstruct the current comparator workflow, and establish genuine adopter pull."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is offline and limited to synthetic participants, non-live questions, an in-memory model, and a spreadsheet adapter. It excludes real experts, active studies, authoritative records, identity resolution, protocol changes, and publication, with explicit halt and rollback conditions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The six-week design predeclares one protocol, compares two independent implementations and the current spreadsheet/export procedure, tests scripted and generated histories, requires rejection of at least eight single-rule mutants, audits specified leakage channels, and states decisive falsifiers."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All verified pipeline gates are YES except adopter credibility, which is UNCERTAIN rather than materially negative and is directly addressable through partner recruitment. There is no unresolved safety or authority stop for the synthetic experiment."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step requires building two implementations, executing comparator-based conformance tests, injecting semantic mutants, and auditing observable leakage—not additional web searching or general investigation."}},"uncertainty_types":["ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS"],"partner_profile":"A national public-health agency with an active or planned Delphi-based workforce-foresight program, a study sponsor or program manager authorized to define the protocol, a Delphi method owner, a data-protection officer governing identity separation, and an existing spreadsheet/export workflow that can be represented using synthetic fixtures.","required_access":"Written authorization for an offline synthetic trial; method-owner time to predeclare eligibility, withdrawal, closure, aggregation, and feedback rules; data-protection input on handle and identity-recovery constraints; synthetic versions of the agency's spreadsheet/export structures and baseline operating procedure; and permission to compare offline outputs without accessing real participant records or an active authoritative study.","bounded_empirical_test":"Within six weeks, predeclare one synthetic two-round protocol covering eligibility changes, duplicates, replacements, missing and late answers, pre- and post-closure withdrawals, failed closure, two aggregation rules, feedback publication, and identity-access attempts. Independently implement an in-memory reference model and spreadsheet-backed adapter; drive both with identical scripted and generated histories; compare contract observations against each other and the current spreadsheet/export reconstruction; inject at least eight single-rule mutants; and audit handles, ordering, timestamps, filenames, errors, and exports against a linkage watchlist.","success_condition":"Every approved workflow is expressible; the two independent implementations agree on every predeclared contract observation; all seeded semantic mutants are rejected; the shared oracle detects divergences missed by the current spreadsheet/export comparator; and no authorized output exposes or predictably links participant identity.","falsification_condition":"The claim is falsified if an approved workflow cannot be represented, nominally conforming implementations disagree on any predeclared eligibility, response, withdrawal, closure, aggregation, feedback, error, side-effect, or identity-access observation, any seeded mutant passes, or an ordinary authorized output resolves or predictably links an identity.","rationale":"This is an appropriate empirical-partner candidate because adjacent prior art leaves a specific Delphi behavioral-conformance claim intact, credible sources establish a consequential underlying problem, and the unresolved advantage cannot be settled through ordinary public research. A partner is essential because only the adopting agency's methodological and privacy authorities can define legitimate semantics and supply an authoritative baseline. The proposed synthetic experiment is safe, bounded, comparator-based, and capable of rejecting the intervention before any real-data deployment."}