{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__sociology_anthropology:P1:v0","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__sociology_anthropology","search_queries":["site:archives.gov Protocols for Native American Archival Materials access use community consultation","site:archivists.org Native American Archives Protocols endorsement community access archives","Mukurtu CMS cultural protocols access permissions official documentation","Local Contexts TK Labels community permissions archives official","site:archivists.org \"SAA Council Endorsement\" \"Protocols for Native American Archival Materials\"","\"Protocols for Native American Archival Materials\" official PDF 2007","Indigenous archives access restrictions implementation study community permissions ethnographic archives","CARE Principles Indigenous Data Governance collective benefit authority to control responsibility ethics official","site:publications.archivists.org Indigenous archives access restrictions case study permissions community protocols implementation","site:archivists.org \"Access Policies for Native American Archival Materials\" case study","ethnographic archive Indigenous community access restrictions permissions archive systems study Mukurtu","community archives permissions spreadsheet access decisions Indigenous collections archive","site:copyright.gov Indigenous traditional cultural expressions archives copyright access permissions report","site:wipo.int traditional cultural expressions archives intellectual property communities access permissions","site:aiatsis.gov.au collection access culturally sensitive material community permission official","site:bls.gov Occupational Employment archivists software developers wages 2025","site:bls.gov/oes/2025/may/oes254011.htm archivists annual mean wage","site:bls.gov/oes/2025/may/oes151252.htm software developers annual mean wage","site:bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/archivists-curators-and-museum-workers.htm median pay 2025","site:bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm median pay 2025","site:localcontexts.org labels traditional knowledge community customization access use rights official","site:localcontexts.org Hub API integration labels institutions technical documentation","site:mukurtu.org API cultural protocols access permission technical","W3C ODRL Information Model Recommendation permission prohibition duty constraint asset assignee official","W3C ODRL policy state revocation permissions official standard"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Protocols for Native American Archival Materials","publisher":"First Archivist Circle; hosted by Smithsonian Libraries and Archives","url":"https://repository.si.edu/items/08bf8fc8-92be-4a33-8c2e-461c0de5bd9f","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2007-04-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Establishes the provenance, authorship, and date of a community-informed archival protocol concerning Native American materials.","Shows that culturally responsive archival stewardship predates this candidate by nearly two decades."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"SAA Council Endorsement of Protocols for Native American Archival Materials","publisher":"Society of American Archivists","url":"https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-council-endorsement-of-protocols-for-native-american-archival-materials","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2018-08-13","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["SAA endorsed the Protocols as an external standard for culturally sensitive records.","The standard centers Native American communities in preservation and access decisions and recognizes that legitimate conditions of access and use change over time.","The endorsement identifies a professional authorizer and expressed archival need, although not demand for this specific software contract."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Access Policies for Native American Archival Materials—Case Studies","publisher":"Society of American Archivists","url":"https://www2.archivists.org/publications/epubs/Native-American-Archival-Materials-Case-Studies","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2026-01-21","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Documents adaptation of culturally responsive access protocols across multiple institutional contexts.","Names identifiable adopter settings including the American Philosophical Society, Northern Arizona University, the Smithsonian National Anthropological Archives, and an ongoing collection-management program.","Shows that access-policy implementation is an active institutional practice, not merely a theoretical concern."]},{"source_id":"S4","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":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Mukurtu already implements user-defined community cultural protocols governing who may access cultural content.","Protocols may reflect seasonal, gender-based, ceremonial, review, or administrative distinctions and are governed by protocol stewards.","The functioning product demonstrates feasibility of community-specific authorization structures while constituting close prior art."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Frequently Asked Questions","publisher":"Local Contexts","url":"https://localcontexts.org/support/frequently-asked-questions/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Indigenous communities retain control and governance over customized Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Labels.","Authorized community representatives, rather than institutions or individual researchers, apply community Labels.","Labels have persistent identifiers and can enter institutional systems through an API, embedding, or download.","Community approval can take weeks or months, demonstrating both feasibility and a material adoption constraint."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"ODRL Information Model 2.2","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2018-02-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Provides a representation-independent standard model for machine-readable permissions, prohibitions, duties, parties, assets, actions, constraints, and conflict strategies.","Shows that much of the proposed public permission surface can be encoded using an established standard.","Does not itself verify community authority, implement the candidate's request-state lifecycle, or supply its adapter conformance oracle."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance","publisher":"Data Science Journal; copy hosted by Global Indigenous Data Alliance","url":"https://www.gida-global.org/s/dsj-1158_carroll.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2020-11-04","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Documents concerns about Indigenous-data exploitation, secondary use, and conflicts between open-data practices and Indigenous rights.","States that Indigenous nations and communities must determine data-governance protocols and participate in stewardship decisions.","Reports early institutional adoption while concluding that further research is needed to operationalize CARE in repositories and existing systems.","Supports the safety requirement that technical conformance cannot establish legitimate authority or ethical sufficiency."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"National Employment and Wage Data by Occupation, May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm?mod=article_inline","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-05-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Reports May 2025 mean wages of $70,640 for archivists, $148,100 for software developers, and $111,490 for software quality-assurance analysts and testers.","Provides a public labor benchmark for resource-equivalent cost estimates; community compensation, legal work, overhead, and vendor pricing remain assumptions."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The sources strongly establish that culturally sensitive archival access changes over time, that Indigenous communities seek authority over future use, and that several repositories actively adapt access policies. They do not directly verify the proposal's narrower prevalence claim that community-specific spreadsheets, color codes, document locations, or personnel changes currently cause divergent permission decisions. No incident rate, disagreement rate, unauthorized-release count, or time-loss baseline was found.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"SAA is an identifiable professional authorizer; the SAA case series names plausible institutional adopters; and Mukurtu and Local Contexts demonstrate sustained community and repository demand for locally governed access controls. CARE explicitly calls for operational mechanisms. None of the sources records a named archive or community requesting, funding, or committing to this candidate's stateful interface-and-conformance design.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Mukurtu cultural protocols","similarity":"A deployed community-oriented archive platform already supplies community-defined access groups, culturally specific restrictions, multiple protocols, and protocol stewards.","remaining_difference":"The documentation does not show a per-material-and-purpose permission lifecycle with pending, expiry, revocation, delivery recording, independent adapters, or a shared black-box substitution test.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Local Contexts Hub and TK/BC Labels","similarity":"Community-authorized, customizable, persistently identified conditions can be delivered into repository systems through an API without institutions authoring the community Labels.","remaining_difference":"Labels principally communicate relationships, expectations, and use conditions; the reviewed source does not establish an enforceable transactional state machine, delivery gate, or adapter-conformance oracle.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Protocols for Native American Archival Materials and institutional adaptations","similarity":"Existing professional guidance and institutional practices already center source communities, changing access conditions, consultation, culturally sensitive restrictions, and local adaptation.","remaining_difference":"They are governance and practice frameworks rather than a representation-independent executable permission object with substitutable technical implementations.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},{"name":"W3C ODRL 2.2","similarity":"An established representation-independent standard already models parties, assets, actions, permissions, prohibitions, duties, constraints, and conflicts in machine-readable form.","remaining_difference":"ODRL does not determine legitimate community authority, and the reviewed Recommendation does not provide the candidate's archive-specific state transitions, authorized local-record mappings, leakage audit, or behavioral adapter acceptance suite.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance","similarity":"CARE supplies the authority, responsibility, ethics, community-control, lifecycle, and institutional-stewardship requirements motivating the candidate.","remaining_difference":"CARE is a high-level governance framework and explicitly leaves operational mechanisms for further research; it is not an executable archive authorization contract.","source_ids":["S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Conditional and falsifiable claim: for one authorized community/archive partnership, a purpose-specific stateful permission gateway built on community-approved mappings and tested against one implementation-independent transition suite will reduce dependence on hidden local record fields while preserving every authority-recognized access distinction. It fails if a valid decision is not uniquely representable, if two suite-passing adapters yield different access outcomes, if archive staff must inspect hidden deliberative data for ordinary decisions, or if the baseline shows no representation-dependent disagreement. This is an incremental synthesis claim, not a world-novelty claim.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Mukurtu demonstrates configurable culturally specific access enforcement; Local Contexts demonstrates community-controlled identifiers and repository/API integration; ODRL supplies a standard policy model; and existing institutional case studies demonstrate workflow adoption. The synthetic tabletop is technically straightforward. Unverified elements include mapping real heterogeneous records without cultural flattening, identity and authority attestation, conflict resolution, audit-metadata privacy, security review, legal interaction with repository ownership and donor terms, integration with a specific collection system, and maintainable conformance coverage.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preventing unauthorized disclosure, use beyond scope, or loss of community control is consequential, but incidence and attainable effect size are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S2","S7"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Professional endorsement, multiple institutional adaptations, and two operational community-governance platforms show substantial pull for the underlying outcome; candidate-specific demand is absent.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"A common state-transition contract and conformance oracle could outperform prose policies, labels, or bespoke integrations on technical consistency, but no comparative evidence yet shows fewer errors or lower workload.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The archive-specific combination of community-authorized adapters, stateful revocation/expiry/delivery semantics, opacity, and shared black-box testing was not found in the eight-source set, but its major elements are established adjacent art and world novelty is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing access-control products, APIs, persistent identifiers, and a machine-readable rights standard make a synthetic prototype credible. Production authority, integration, security, and conformance completeness remain unresolved.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The intervention correctly reserves semantic authority to communities, but no community or archive has authorized this candidate, and community governance and approval may take weeks or months. Multi-community rollout cannot be centrally authorized.","source_ids":["S5","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposed tabletop has concrete artifacts, comparators, and falsifiers, but decisive evidence requires a named partnership and access to actual workflow knowledge unavailable through web research.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Fail-closed ambiguity handling, non-live synthetic testing, explicit revocation and expiry, hidden deliberation, and rollback to the existing process create a credible safety net, provided authority and leakage controls are validated.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"A stable interface and reusable suite could scale technically, but every community requires authorized semantic mapping, compensated governance, approval, version stewardship, and culturally specific validation; those obligations should not be optimized away.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Two-week non-live tabletop: contract drafting, 12 synthetic sequences, two small adapters, black-box tests, leakage review, facilitation, documentation, and honoraria for authorized community representatives.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 60-100 software/QA hours and 30-60 archive-steward hours.","Two to four community representatives receive honoraria rather than uncompensated participation.","A 1.5-2.0 loaded-cost multiplier is applied to BLS wages for benefits, overhead, and administration.","No real-record migration, production security assessment, or legal opinion is included."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One-community production-ready contract profile, authority registry design, two hardened adapters, automated tests, threat/privacy review, accessibility, documentation, and governance agreements.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Roughly 0.5-1.0 software/QA FTE-year plus archive, facilitation, and community-governance effort.","Existing archive and identity systems expose usable integration points.","Excludes bulk metadata remediation and custom procurement requirements.","Community approval duration and compensation are site-specific."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch in one multi-community archive: integrations, record reconciliation, parallel validation, staff training, community-specific adapters, security/legal review, rollback tooling, and staged non-sensitive deployment.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One to three software/QA FTE-years plus archive/project-management time.","Several communities require separate mapping and approval processes.","Historical records need sampling and reconciliation but not complete redigitization.","Legal review addresses donor terms, privacy, copyright, contractual authority, and applicable tribal or national law."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing adapter maintenance, conformance-suite updates, audit and incident review, platform operations, community change approvals, training, and compensated stewardship.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 0.25-0.75 combined technical FTE plus archive stewardship.","Community representatives are compensated for periodic decisions and version review.","Major archive migrations or new-community onboarding are excluded.","Infrastructure cost is modest relative to labor."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Professional standards, institutional case studies, deployed platforms, and CARE establish a consequential need for culturally responsive, community-controlled, temporally changing access. The candidate's specific representation-dependent failure prevalence remains unverified.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S7"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"SAA is a credible professional authorizer, and its case series identifies the American Philosophical Society, Northern Arizona University, and Smithsonian National Anthropological Archives as institutions already adapting related access practices. Communities remain the necessary semantic authorizers; none has committed to this candidate.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim compares a manual heterogeneous baseline with two independently built adapters and is falsified by divergent passing implementations, unmappable legitimate distinctions, continued hidden-record inspection, or absence of baseline representation dependence.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A two-week, non-live, 12-sequence tabletop with synthetic records, two adapter shapes, a common suite, leakage review, predeclared stop conditions, and no real access changes is bounded and reversible.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The design appropriately requires community authorization and keeps the first test synthetic, but no named community-recognized body has approved the abstraction, representatives, disclosed observables, or authority mapping. That approval cannot be inferred from repository records or replaced by technical conformance.","source_ids":["S5","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four ranges have explicit lifecycle scopes and labor assumptions anchored to current federal wage data. Confidence is low beyond the tabletop because partner count, honoraria, legal review, integration condition, and record remediation are unknown.","source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"After obtaining written approval from one named community-recognized authority and one archive steward, pre-register and run a two-week, non-live tabletop using 12 fictional sequences: grant, denial, narrowed scope, invalid authority, duplicate decision, expiry, revocation before delivery, revocation after recorded delivery, conflicting updates, malformed input, repeated query, and adapter replacement. Comparator A is the archive's current manual decision procedure applied independently by two staff members; comparators B and C are independently implemented spreadsheet-shaped and ledger-shaped adapters. Measure inter-rater agreement, cross-adapter outcome agreement, contract-clause coverage, hidden-data touches, leakage findings, unresolved distinctions, and staff time. Falsify problem fit if the baseline produces identical states across personnel/representation changes with no undocumented dependencies. Falsify intervention adequacy if any authority-recognized distinction is unmappable, two suite-passing adapters disagree on a held-out outcome, routine decisions require protected deliberative data, or community representatives reject the authority or observability boundary. Stop immediately and retain the existing process if any protected information would be exposed or authority is disputed.","blocking_evidence":["No named archive-community partnership or written attestation from the community-recognized decision authority.","No audit of actual permission records, staff interpretations, discrepancies, near misses, unauthorized releases, false denials, or decision time.","No field evidence that the abstract states preserve all culturally significant distinctions across authority, kinship, temporality, conditionality, and collective deliberation.","No independent demonstration that the conformance suite rejects deliberately faulty adapters and prevents contract-relevant divergence on held-out sequences.","No production assessment of identity/authority attestation, privacy and side-channel leakage, security, donor agreements, copyright, tribal law, or other jurisdiction-specific obligations.","No vendor quotes or partner-specific estimates for integration, record remediation, community compensation, and ongoing stewardship."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not measured. This bounded search found mature adjacent governance practices, deployed community-access products, community-controlled metadata/API infrastructure, and a standard machine-readable rights model. It did not find, within the eight reviewed sources, an exact archive implementation combining a community-authorized hidden-representation adapter layer, purpose-specific mutable permission lifecycle, delivery audit, leakage probe, and shared black-box substitution gate. Absence from this source set is not evidence of world novelty.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure one named archive partner and written authorization from one community-recognized governing body for the synthetic exercise.","Measure the current workflow's inter-staff disagreement, undocumented-field dependence, decision time, false-denial rate, and known authorization failures on an authority-approved sample.","Have community representatives determine whether every legitimate distinction maps uniquely without exposing protected governance information.","Build two independent adapters and mutation-test the suite with deliberately faulty implementations before interpreting green tests as conformance.","Obtain jurisdiction-specific privacy, copyright, donor-term, tribal-law, security, and authority review before any real-record pilot.","Replace broad deployment assumptions with partner-specific integration inventory, compensated-governance plan, and vendor or internal labor estimates."],"reason":"Web evidence establishes the general problem, credible adopter class, feasibility of component technologies, and substantial adjacent prior art. The decisive remaining questions—actual representation-dependent failure prevalence, legitimacy of a specific authority mapping, cultural adequacy of the abstract states, comparative adapter behavior, and production workflow/legal safety—require partnered fieldwork, proprietary workflow evidence, and live technical testing rather than further bounded web search."},"proposal_index":1}