{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__religious_studies_theology:P2:v0","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__religious_studies_theology","search_queries":["religious observance calendar dates vary authority tradition official scheduling guidance university","religious holidays calendar API authority provenance version observance dates","RFC religious calendar recurrence non Gregorian RSCALE RFC 7529","Hebcal REST API documentation events calendar official","official multifaith religious observance calendar planning events dates may vary one day university","religious holidays API interfaith calendar product developer documentation","Unicode CLDR calendar systems islamic variants documentation","property based testing conformance black box API official documentation contract testing","religious observances API calendar interfaith official API documentation","Calendarific API religious holidays documentation types observance","Nager Date religious holidays API documentation","Liturgical Calendar API official documentation Catholic calendar API","site:bls.gov/ooh software developers median pay 2025","site:bls.gov/oes/current software developers hourly mean wage 2025","site:bls.gov/ooh historians archivists median pay 2025","site:usccb.org liturgical calendar dioceses United States publishes each year official calendar","site:churchofengland.org liturgical calendar rules official calendar 2026"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Religious Calendar","publisher":"Stanford University Office for Religious & Spiritual Life","url":"https://orsl.stanford.edu/religious-calendar","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.; current page accessed 2026-08-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Stanford supplies a multifaith observance calendar to faculty, staff, and students for managing academic-calendar conflicts.","Stanford states that some Islamic, Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist dates vary with lunar, astronomical, local, or denominational practice.","The page records a Pacific Time basis and advises accommodation when a community's date differs from the listed date."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Religious Holidays","publisher":"University of Guelph","url":"https://www.uoguelph.ca/studentexperience/religious-holidays","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.; 2026 calendar current on access","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The university describes its multifaith calendars as planning tools for events and activities that may affect religious observance.","It relies on religious, spiritual, and worldview campus groups for accuracy and representation and solicits corrections.","It distributes the calendar through Outlook and connects it to academic accommodation."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"RFC 7529: Non-Gregorian Recurrence Rules in the Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)","publisher":"RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7529/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2015-05","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A standards-track extension exists for non-Gregorian recurrence rules used by religious and civil holidays.","The standard recognizes that a Gregorian-only top-level calendar scale is inadequate for mixed-calendar data.","It delegates calendar-system definitions to CLDR and does not define religious authority, provenance, ambiguity, or immutable profile versions."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Developer APIs","publisher":"Hebcal","url":"https://www.hebcal.com/home/developer-apis","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A mature first-party API already supplies Jewish holidays, Hebrew-date conversion, Torah readings, location-sensitive candle-lighting times, and other calendrical calculations.","Hebcal supports REST, JSON, RSS, iCalendar, multiple language implementations, and location parameters.","Its published surface demonstrates implementability but is a concrete Jewish-calendar service rather than the proposed cross-implementation authority-profile contract."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Worldwide Holidays and Observances RESTful API","publisher":"Calendarific","url":"https://calendarific.com/index.php","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"n.d.; current pricing and coverage page accessed 2026-08-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A commercial API already distributes national, local, religious, and observance data for more than 230 countries.","The service exposes holiday names, dates, types, country or regional customization, and multiple subscription tiers.","The inspected page does not expose authority profiles, explicit underdetermination, archived behavioral versions, or a cross-implementation conformance rule."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Unicode Locale Data Markup Language (LDML)","publisher":"Unicode Consortium","url":"https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr35/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"current technical report accessed 2026-08-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["CLDR identifies multiple calendar systems and algorithm variants, including generic Islamic, Islamic-civil, and Islamic-Umm-al-Qura types.","Existing standardized identifiers and calculation data make explicit calendar-variant parameters technically feasible.","Algorithm identifiers alone do not represent community authorization, disputed observances, or profile-review state."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Liturgical Calendar for the Dioceses of the United States of America","publisher":"United States Conference of Catholic Bishops","url":"https://www.usccb.org/committees/divine-worship/liturgical-calendar","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"updated 2026-02-05","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An identifiable religious authority publishes a jurisdiction-scoped annual calendar with celebrations, ranks, colors, and citations.","The calendar derives from a General Roman Calendar and a U.S. proper calendar approved by the USCCB and confirmed by the relevant Holy See congregation.","The page documents dated revisions, illustrating why authority, jurisdiction, and edition must remain explicit."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2025-08-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The May 2024 median annual wage was $133,080 for software developers and $102,610 for software quality-assurance analysts and testers.","The occupational description includes test planning, risk identification, defect reporting, maintenance, documentation, and stakeholder feedback.","These wage figures provide a public labor-cost anchor, though they exclude benefits, overhead, specialized religious expertise, and 2026 inflation."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Official university calendars are used for academic planning and accommodation, yet Stanford explicitly records one-day variation caused by local sighting, astronomical calculation, and denominational practice. Guelph relies on community expertise and correction feedback. CLDR separately distinguishes algorithm variants, while the USCCB demonstrates that an observance calendar can be authority- and jurisdiction-scoped and revised over time. The sources visibly establish the underlying ambiguity and workflow importance, although they do not quantify how often software substitution causes errors or the magnitude of resulting harm.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Stanford's Office for Religious & Spiritual Life and Guelph's Multi-Faith Programs are identifiable calendar maintainers and institutional users; Guelph distributes its calendar through Outlook and explicitly seeks community review. USCCB is an identifiable authority for one bounded Catholic profile. None of these organizations expresses demand for this specific resolver contract, commits staff or funding, or authorizes the proposed pilot, so stakeholder pull is demonstrated for accurate planning calendars but only inferred for the intervention.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Institution-maintained multifaith observance calendars","similarity":"Stanford and Guelph already publish planning-oriented calendars, disclose limitations, accommodate differing community dates, and use expert or community correction workflows.","remaining_difference":"They are maintained schedules, not a versioned behavioral interface with explicit authority-profile handles, ambiguity states, archived-result reproduction, and an implementation-independent conformance suite.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},{"name":"Hebcal developer APIs","similarity":"Hebcal exposes date conversion, holidays, location-sensitive times, multiple output formats, and reusable software implementations through documented APIs.","remaining_difference":"It is a concrete tradition-specific engine and dataset; the inspected documentation does not establish independently substitutable implementations governed by authority-scoped semantic versions and explicit underdetermination.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Calendarific holiday API","similarity":"Calendarific provides a broad programmable interface for religious and other observances with country or regional filtering and commercial operational support.","remaining_difference":"Its public page presents dates, names, types, and geographic customization, not named religious authorities, profile-review states, contested-date outputs, immutable prior semantics, or a shared conformance oracle.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"RFC 7529 plus Unicode CLDR calendar identifiers","similarity":"These standards provide machine-readable non-Gregorian recurrence rules and distinguish calendar algorithms, enabling portable temporal inputs and implementations.","remaining_difference":"They standardize recurrence representation and algorithm identifiers rather than the authority, provenance, ambiguity, observance ranking, review, or archival semantics proposed here.","source_ids":["S3","S6"]},{"name":"USCCB jurisdiction-scoped annual liturgical calendar","similarity":"This is a strong real-world example of an authorized, geographically scoped calendar with ranks, source lineage, annual editions, and documented revisions.","remaining_difference":"It is an authoritative published calendar rather than a representation-independent resolver contract or an acceptance test for substituting calculation engines.","source_ids":["S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For one permission-cleared, reviewer-authorized profile and a predeclared two-year range, two independently structured resolvers can expose authority, edition, temporal basis, provenance, ambiguity, errors, and archived-version behavior through the same contract such that a blinded authorized reviewer finds no material semantic difference, while the implementations retain different algorithms and storage. Failure occurs if an implementation must copy the incumbent representation, if any contract-passing divergence is judged materially non-equivalent, if ambiguity is converted into a single asserted date, or if an unchanged version fails to reproduce archived results.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Hebcal and Calendarific demonstrate operational calendar APIs; RFC 7529 and CLDR supply portable recurrence and calendar-variant foundations; official calendars demonstrate bounded authority and revision workflows. A read-only adapter, simple independent resolver, versioned result store, and black-box fixtures are conventional software work. Remaining feasibility is empirical: no source verifies that authorized reviewers will accept the proposed abstraction, that permission-cleared rule materials are available, or that rare cycles and contested cases can be represented without exposing derivations. Legal permission depends on the selected source materials; safety depends on explicit non-authoritative labeling, retained ambiguity, reviewer control, and isolation from live accommodation or worship decisions.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Calendars inform accommodations, exams, events, publications, and religious aids, so silent changes could matter. No prevalence, incident, or outcome data quantify the proposed system's incremental impact.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Universities visibly maintain and distribute calendars and solicit religious-community expertise, but no adopter has requested or committed to the proposed contract.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Explicit authority, ambiguity, provenance, and reproducible versions plausibly improve on static calendars, generic APIs, and recurrence standards, but comparative performance has not been tested.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combination is contrastive against inspected standards and services, although nearly every component exists adjacently and broader world novelty is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing APIs, standards, algorithm identifiers, and versioned official calendars make a bounded prototype technically credible. Reviewer-equivalence and long-tail calendrical coverage remain unproven.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Clear institutional maintainers and an example of a tradition-specific authority exist, but no custodian has authorized source use, approved a profile, or agreed to adjudicate divergences.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Public comparators are available, but the decisive evidence requires permission-cleared fixtures, a second implementation, proprietary or locally maintained rules, and an authorized blinded reviewer.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Returning underdetermination, preserving provenance, retaining old versions, and preventing universalized profiles directly address false certainty and authority conflation, provided these controls survive implementation.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Technical interfaces can scale, but each profile may require distinct authorization, permissions, exception review, rare-cycle fixtures, and continuing stewardship; no evidence shows those governance costs decline across traditions.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Secure one written pilot authorization and fixture license; specify one profile and two-year range; implement an incumbent adapter and deliberately simple independent resolver; run 15 predeclared queries plus leakage and metamorphic checks; fund blinded reviewer adjudication and a short report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 160-300 combined engineering and QA hours.","One authorized reviewer contributes 20-50 paid hours.","BLS wage data are converted to a fully loaded 2026 labor rate with benefits, overhead, and modest inflation.","No restricted source requires a large license fee and no production integration occurs."],"source_ids":["S4","S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Turn a successful pilot into a maintained read-only service for one to three profiles, including schema, version archive, conformance automation, documentation, reviewer workflow, access controls, and consumer adapter.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Roughly 0.5-1.5 engineering/QA FTE-years plus part-time product, legal, and subject-matter review.","Existing calendar libraries and standards are reused.","Scope excludes live decision automation, high-availability commitments, and unrestricted redistribution of source rules."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production hardening and launch across several authorized profiles and institutional consumers, with security review, observability, migration support, durable archives, accessibility, incident rollback, legal review, and contracted reviewer stewardship.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Two to five technical and operational FTE-equivalents for approximately one year.","Multiple profile custodians require compensated review and onboarding.","Launch includes redundant hosting and support but not global coverage or certification by every represented community."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate a small bounded service: hosting, monitoring, profile updates, archive integrity checks, conformance regression, support, deprecation communication, and periodic authorized review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 0.4-1.3 engineering/QA FTE-equivalents plus reviewer retainers and modest infrastructure.","Profile count and request volume remain limited.","Major new traditions, historical backfills, litigation, and source licensing are excluded."],"source_ids":["S2","S5","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official institutional sources show that observance calendars are used for consequential planning and that dates legitimately vary by local, astronomical, community, and denominational practice.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Stanford and Guelph are identifiable calendar maintainers and consumers, while USCCB illustrates a credible profile authorizer. This gate does not mean any has agreed to adopt this proposal.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim is bounded to one authorized profile, two implementations, a two-year range, explicit semantic fields, blinded review, and concrete falsifiers against static/API/standard baselines.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 15-query, one-profile, two-year, read-only comparison with a second implementation and predeclared reviewer criteria is finite and reversible.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The pilot design contains appropriate safeguards, but no named custodian has granted permission, approved the authority profile, or accepted the adjudication role; licensing and redistribution rights are also unknown.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four scopes are separated and anchored to public developer and QA wages, but production bands remain low-confidence because profile count, licensing, reviewer rates, and service obligations are unspecified.","source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Obtain written permission and profile authorization from one calendar custodian before building. Preregister the public contract, supported two-year interval, and 15 queries: ordinary dates; whole-versus-partitioned intervals; civil-midnight and sunset/day-boundary cases; location variation; disputed or underdetermined observances; unsupported years; retrieval by scoped identifier; supersession; and archived-version reproduction. Compare (A) the incumbent schedule or adapter, (B) an independently structured minimal resolver, and (C) a static-table or format-only baseline. Run at least 1,000 generated interval partitions and query-order permutations without inspecting internals. Have the authorized reviewer, blinded to implementation, classify every divergence as defect, contract underspecification, authorized profile difference, or inadmissible authority loss. Falsify the intervention if the independent resolver must copy incumbent representation, any ambiguity becomes an asserted date, authority or edition provenance is lost, an unchanged version fails reproduction, or a suite-passing output is judged materially non-equivalent. Do not connect results to live worship, accommodation, publishing, or chaplaincy decisions.","blocking_evidence":["No externally documented incident rate or measured harm from calendar-engine substitution was found.","No university, publisher, chaplaincy office, funder, or calendar custodian has expressed demand for this specific contract or committed resources.","No named authorized reviewer or permission-cleared authority profile has been secured.","Licensing, quotation, redistribution, and derivative-fixture rights for the eventual source schedule and rule materials are unknown.","No independent resolver has been implemented, so substitutability and representation independence remain untested.","No evidence establishes that the proposed abstract surface captures distinctions that authorized reviewers consider indispensable across rare cycles, reforms, or contested observances.","No empirical comparison shows advantage over a well-governed static calendar, a tradition-specific API, or format-only interoperability.","Production profile count, reliability target, security posture, archival retention, reviewer compensation, and institutional integration scope are unspecified, limiting cost confidence."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"This evaluation measured only contrast against the eight opened sources. World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured. The result does not establish that no unpublished, proprietary, tradition-specific, or differently named authority-scoped resolver contract exists.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Secure written authorization from one identifiable calendar custodian and confirm source/fixture reuse rights.","Preregister the one-profile contract, two-year scope, 15 queries, comparator definitions, acceptance thresholds, and falsifiers.","Implement an incumbent adapter and an independently structured minimal resolver without shared calendrical rule code.","Complete blinded divergence adjudication by the authorized reviewer and publish the classified results, including all failures.","Demonstrate that ambiguity, authority scope, rule-set edition, and archived outputs survive every test while live consumer workflows remain disconnected.","Replace broad production cost assumptions with a partner-approved staffing, licensing, reliability, archive, and stewardship scope."],"reason":"Bounded web research supports the problem, adjacent practice, technical plausibility, and a credible institutional use case, but cannot answer the decisive claim. That claim requires licensed profile data, an independently built resolver, live expert adjudication, and authority approval. Those are fieldwork and testing requirements, not additional bounded web-search questions."},"proposal_index":2}