{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__religious_studies_theology:P1:v0","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__religious_studies_theology","search_queries":["digital humanities religious studies ritual database ontology provenance emic etic archive data model","official cultural heritage data standard provenance access restrictions CIDOC CRM archival records","CARE Principles Indigenous Data Governance authority control ethics official","Mukurtu CMS cultural protocols access restrictions official documentation","Database of Religious History methodology coding uncertainty sources official","Seshat Global History Databank codebook uncertainty data disagreement scholarly database","ritual database comparative religion ontology digital humanities archive schema interoperability","digital humanities data modeling interpretation database schema scholarly argument","site:religiondatabase.org Database of Religious History methodology experts entries sources variables","Database of Religious History codebook methodology academic paper","Database of Religious History project official","site:w3.org/TR prov-o provenance ontology recommendation 2013","site:cidoc-crm.org Version 7.1.3 official specification CIDOC CRM PDF","site:loc.gov preservation metadata unknown absent provenance access rights standard PREMIS","site:tei-c.org Guidelines certainty responsibility interpretation provenance official","Local Contexts Traditional Knowledge Labels official provenance attribution access cultural authority","site:localcontexts.org TK Labels authority provenance official","\"The Database of Religious History (DRH): Ontology, Coding Strategies\"","\"How to deal with levels of certainty and disagreement\" Seshat","site:digitalhumanities.org/dhq Seshat uncertainty codebook data source references"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"About the Database of Religious History","publisher":"Database of Religious History, University of British Columbia","url":"https://religiondatabase.org/landing/about","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The DRH is an identifiable UBC-based religious-history data infrastructure and therefore a credible potential adopter or comparison partner.","It explicitly seeks standardized searchable data while retaining qualitative comments, references, links, and coexisting expert disagreements.","It identifies researchers, teachers, and the wider historical community as users and describes information overload and scattered resources as problems."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"The database of religious history (DRH): ontology, coding strategies and the future of cultural evolutionary analyses","publisher":"Religion, Brain & Behavior; repository copy hosted by LSE Research Online","url":"https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/119500/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2023","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Ontology, unit-of-analysis, back-end architecture, coding strategy, intended users, and funding are major challenges for large cross-cultural databases.","The DRH is direct prior art for structured, expert-coded comparative religion data.","The source supports the problem family but does not report repository-substitution failures or test the proposed behavioral contract."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"A Macroscope for Global History: Seshat Global History Databank, a methodological overview","publisher":"Digital Humanities Quarterly","url":"https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/10/4/000272/000272.html","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2016","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Seshat is close prior art for structured comparative historical and religious data with source context, expert review, querying, export, and linked-data infrastructure.","Its data model explicitly distinguishes presence, absence, and unknownness and connects data points to historiographic sources.","It records research-process metadata and uses feedback among experts, assistants, variables, and data, demonstrating feasibility but also substantial human-governance cost.","The paper identifies cross-period comparability, knowledge gaps, universal-versus-local models, and data quality as unresolved methodological challenges."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model, Version 7.1.3","publisher":"CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group / International Council of Museums","url":"https://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/cidoc_crm_version_7.1.3.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2024-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["CIDOC CRM is ISO-linked prior art intended to integrate and exchange heterogeneous cultural-heritage information.","It provides a common language for domain experts and developers and supports transformations from local formats.","It explicitly does not replace meaning-rich scholarly text and requires community-specific terminology and documentation guidance, limiting any claim that a generic ontology alone solves the candidate's problem."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2013-04-30","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["PROV-O provides a stable, extensible standard for representing, exchanging, and integrating provenance across systems and contexts.","It supplies implementable entities, activities, agents, derivation, attribution, primary-source, revision, and qualified-relation concepts relevant to the proposed record.","Provenance representation is therefore established practice rather than a distinctive element of the candidate."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Understanding Communities and Cultural Protocols","publisher":"Mukurtu CMS, Center for Digital Scholarship and Curation at Washington State University","url":"https://docs.mukurtu.org/communities-cultural-protocols-categories/UnderstandingCommunitiesAndCulturalProtocols/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Mukurtu implements community-managed, user-defined cultural protocols and protocol-based access for digital heritage content.","Protocols may represent seasonal, gender-based, sacred or ceremonial, review, private, and other access conditions.","Access-preserving transformations and steward authority have existing technical analogues, although this documentation does not establish behavioral substitutability across repositories."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance","publisher":"Global Indigenous Data Alliance","url":"https://www.gida-global.org/careprinciples","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2019","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Interoperability and data sharing alone can ignore power differentials, historical context, Indigenous rights, and authority to control data.","People, purpose, collective benefit, responsibility, ethics, and self-determination must complement data-centered interoperability.","The candidate cannot treat archive-steward or technical-team approval as sufficient where source-community authority applies."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Labels","publisher":"Local Contexts","url":"https://localcontexts.org/labels/about-the-labels/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Local Contexts provides established metadata tools for community-specific provenance, protocols, permissions, access, and future use.","The labels are customizable, can attach to datasets and collections, and identify primary cultural authority.","Use requires community decision-making, so community-originated restrictions cannot be defined or weakened solely by repository staff.","This is close prior art for portable access and provenance semantics, though not for a black-box repository conformance oracle."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The problem family is visible and important: DRH and Seshat document ontology, uncertainty, source context, expert disagreement, comparability, and data-quality challenges, while CIDOC CRM addresses heterogeneous cultural-heritage integration. Mukurtu, CARE, and Local Contexts show that provenance and access behavior can carry ethical and authority consequences. However, no opened source measures how often repository migrations silently alter ritual claims, citations, tag sequence, emic/etic distinctions, or access decisions, and none documents the candidate's exact two-repository failure scenario.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The UBC-based DRH is an identifiable, operationally relevant potential adopter or research partner and publicly expresses needs for standardized searchable data, references, qualitative qualification, and visible expert disagreement. Seshat supplies another credible comparator. Mukurtu and Local Contexts identify repository, protocol-steward, and community-authority roles. No source records commitment, budget, procurement authority, or demand for this specific behavioral-contract pilot, and the candidate does not name the archive whose steward would authorize its 20 records.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Database of Religious History","similarity":"A comparative-religion infrastructure combining standardized structured answers with expert authorship, qualitative comments, references, and coexisting disagreements.","remaining_difference":"It is primarily an ontology and coding platform; the opened evidence does not show a representation-independent operation contract or a shared black-box suite admitting independently structured repositories as substitutes.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},{"name":"Seshat Global History Databank","similarity":"Uses explicit variables, expert review, source-linked context, presence/absence/unknown distinctions, research-process provenance, querying, export, and linked-data infrastructure, including religion and ritual data.","remaining_difference":"It standardizes one curated research environment and data model rather than testing multiple hidden representations against a common behavioral oracle.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"CIDOC CRM","similarity":"A mature, ISO-linked formal ontology for integrating and mediating heterogeneous cultural-heritage information and mapping local formats.","remaining_difference":"It provides semantic interoperability and a common requirements language, but not the candidate's operation-sequence invariants, access-denial behavior, emic/etic non-overwrite rule, or repository acceptance test.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"W3C PROV-O","similarity":"A representation-neutral, extensible model for exchanging provenance across implementations and contexts.","remaining_difference":"It covers provenance vocabulary, not ritual-record interpretation, authorization, error semantics, or behavioral substitutability.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Mukurtu cultural protocols and Local Contexts labels","similarity":"Existing practices encode community provenance, cultural authority, access protocols, permissions, and future-use expectations in digital collections.","remaining_difference":"They do not establish a complete cross-repository scholarly record contract or conformance oracle; Local Contexts also requires community-defined decision processes rather than archive-defined universal invariants.","source_ids":["S6","S8"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For a predeclared, permission-cleared ritual corpus, a repository-neutral set of public operations and sequence invariants—rather than a common storage schema or ontology alone—will allow an independently structured implementation to reproduce provenance, qualification, unknown-versus-absent, emic/etic separation, citation, error, and access outcomes without reproducing the incumbent schema. This is falsified if passage requires incumbent-specific structure, fails to predict the 12 observable tasks, weakens any access result, or systematically erases distinctions identified by authorized reviewers.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"CIDOC CRM, PROV-O, Seshat, Mukurtu, and Local Contexts demonstrate implementable components for heterogeneous representations, provenance, explicit unknownness, expert review, access protocols, and portable community metadata. A 20-record copy and simple in-memory implementation are technically modest. The sources do not demonstrate the combined black-box contract, generated operation sequences, emic/etic invariants, or leakage audit in a religious archive. Workflow burden, corpus-specific mapping, privacy law, contractual rights, and community approval remain site-dependent.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preventing silent changes to scholarly claims, citations, qualifications, and culturally governed access would matter materially, but prevalence and realized effect are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6","S7","S8"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relevant infrastructures visibly seek structured, source-grounded, qualified comparative data, but no organization has requested or committed to this specific pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Behavioral conformance across hidden representations goes beyond ontology, exchange format, provenance vocabulary, or access labels alone; the advantage over a carefully profiled CIDOC/PROV/Mukurtu implementation remains untested.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"No close analogue among the eight sources combines religious-record semantics with black-box substitutability, but nearly every component is established and the remaining novelty is a narrow integration and validation claim.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Standards and operating platforms cover the core data, provenance, mapping, and access mechanisms; a copied 20-record implementation is feasible with ordinary software and test tooling.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Repository staff and a principal investigator cannot necessarily authorize all uses; community, ethics, contractual, and jurisdiction-specific authorities may hold nondelegable control, and no named pilot archive or approvals are present.","source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal has a small corpus, explicit tasks, comparator implementation, and falsifiers, but lacks a named partner, cleared records, baseline dependency inventory, fixtures, and preregistered thresholds.","source_ids":["S1","S3"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"A read-only copy, synthetic fixtures, zero-tolerance access checks, deletion of derivatives, and unchanged production archive create a strong reversible safety net if actual authorities approve.","source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"The software pattern can be reused, but Seshat and the DRH show that ontology, source qualification, expert feedback, and cross-cultural comparability are labor-intensive; community-specific access rules further limit cheap universal scaling.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S7","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Eight-to-sixteen-week partnered pilot: dependency inventory, authority review, contract draft, synthetic fixtures, adapters for 20 cleared records, one independent in-memory implementation, generated tests, and two domain reviewers.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One part-time archivist, one religious-studies researcher, one access or community-authority reviewer, one software engineer, and limited project management.","No purchase of restricted content, production integration, or major legal dispute.","Resource-equivalent estimate, not a vendor quote; the sources establish labor complexity but not 2026 prices."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production-grade contract registry, two repository adapters, authorization and audit integration, stable citation service, leakage testing, security review, documentation, training, and governance process for one archive.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing repositories expose usable APIs or read replicas.","One archive and a bounded set of record classes; no mass recataloguing.","Community consultation and legal review are material but do not become multi-year disputes."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Archive-wide rollout across heterogeneous collections and downstream clients, including mappings, remediation, migration rehearsal, access validation, citation continuity, user acceptance, and staged cutover.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Tens to hundreds of thousands of records and several downstream consumers.","Substantial manual exception handling and authorized scholarly review.","The range excludes acquisition of a new enterprise repository and litigation."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Contract stewardship, adapter and conformance-suite maintenance, access-rule synchronization, incident response, periodic leakage audits, reviewer honoraria, and support for one mature archive.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One to three technical or data-steward FTE equivalents plus recurring domain and community review.","Moderate contract evolution and a limited number of supported implementations.","No externally supported price evidence was found."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent research and standards sources verify that ontology, heterogeneous representation, unknown-versus-absent, provenance, contextual interpretation, data quality, and culturally governed access are real concerns, although the exact migration-failure prevalence remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The UBC-based Database of Religious History is an identifiable relevant operator with expressed needs for standardized, referenced, qualified comparative-religion data. This establishes a credible potential adopter or partner, not commitment to adopt the proposal.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate makes a contrastive claim against shared ontologies and schemas: two independently represented repositories should match on predeclared public scholarly and access behavior without matching internals. Outcomes and falsifiers can be observed.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"Twenty cleared records, 12 predeclared tasks, an incumbent adapter, a deliberately independent representation, black-box and generated-sequence tests, and classified divergences form a bounded experiment.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The design can be safely isolated, but no named archive, corpus authorization, ethics determination, rights analysis, or relevant community decision process has been secured. CARE and Local Contexts make clear that institutional technical authority may be insufficient.","source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The work packages and broad order-of-magnitude bands are internally coherent and source-supported as labor-intensive, but no salary schedule, vendor quote, archive size, API inventory, legal scope, or mapping sample supports the dollar ranges.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Secure one named archive and written approvals for 20 non-public, permission-cleared copied records. Before implementation, freeze 12 tasks and acceptance rules: exact preservation of authorized source links, unknown/absent state, emic and analyst labels, requested comparison dimensions, citation identifiers, allowed errors, and access decisions; any access weakening is an immediate failure. Compare three arms: incumbent behavior without a contract, a schema/ontology-only mapping, and the proposed behavioral contract implemented against both the incumbent and an independently designed in-memory store. Run fixed fixtures plus generated authorized operation sequences. Two authorized reviewers, blinded to implementation, classify every divergence and a stratified sample of agreements. Falsify the incremental claim if the behavioral arm does not reduce material divergences relative to schema-only mapping, requires reproducing incumbent internals, yields any access leak, or passes while reviewers identify systematic interpretive erasure. This requires proprietary corpus access, partner decisions, and live testing and therefore cannot be resolved by further web search.","blocking_evidence":["No observed baseline showing downstream dependence on raw fields, ontology paths, internal identifiers, tag order, or coding workflow in a named archive.","No signed adopter, archive steward, principal investigator, ethics officer, or community-authority participation.","No permission-cleared 20-record corpus or verified deletion and credential-revocation procedure.","No empirical comparison against a schema/ontology-only rival.","No evidence that suite passage predicts authorized reviewers' judgments about preservation of scholarly distinctions.","No jurisdiction-specific analysis of privacy, copyright, contractual, sacred-material, Indigenous-data, or research-ethics obligations.","No priced staffing plan, repository/API inventory, archive scale, or vendor estimate.","No measured prevalence, market size, realized impact, patentability, freedom to operate, or world-novelty result."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The eight-source search found substantial adjacent standards and practices but no direct demonstration of the complete religious-record behavioral-conformance intervention. This is not a world-novelty, patentability, freedom-to-operate, or exhaustive prior-art determination; those questions, along with market size and realized impact, remain explicitly unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Name a participating archive and document each institutional and community authority required for the copied-corpus pilot.","Produce the dependency-inventory baseline for 20 approved records.","Preregister the 12 tasks, schema-only comparator, semantic divergence taxonomy, reviewer procedure, thresholds, and zero-tolerance access falsifier.","Implement two genuinely independent representations and run the shared oracle without exposing production users or restricted fixtures.","Obtain staffing estimates or quotes sufficient to tighten all four 2026-USD cost bands."],"reason":"Open-book research supports the problem family, identifies credible adjacent adopters, and narrows the distinctive claim, but cannot establish that the proposed contract outperforms schema/ontology mapping or preserves interpretive adequacy and access behavior. Those questions require a named partner, proprietary or controlled records, authorized human review, and live comparative testing. Under the controller rule, this is an empirical-research stop and repairable must be false."},"proposal_index":1}