{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__accounting_auditing:P3:v0","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__accounting_auditing","proposal_index":3,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal isolates a specific incremental claim: adding a consent-governed boundary enactment to unchanged independence rules and workflows will improve recognition, safe consultation, and correct routing of uncertain independence matters without increasing coercion, privacy risk, false assurance, or authority confusion."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Regulatory rules, inspection findings, and SEC observations substantiate consequential independence failures, commercial pressure, cultural influence, and failures despite confirmation processes, although the narrower collective-meaning mechanism remains unmeasured."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"An audit firm's independence, ethics, quality-control, or engagement-acceptance function is a concrete adopter and can authorize a synthetic study, supply appropriate personnel, and identify the correct mock decision routes."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Representative audit and ethics personnel, credible hierarchy and consultation conditions, and firm-specific authority-routing knowledge are needed to test behavioral effect, opt-out credibility, workflow fit, and burden; public research cannot resolve these uncertainties."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is a voluntary, synthetic-only tabletop using invented facts, anonymous measures, a mock workflow, explicit authority separation, confidential participation paths, halt rules, and no client or personal independence information."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"A preregistered two-arm comparison can hold facts and ordinary workflow constant, use blinded scoring, measure recognition, routing, safety, authority clarity, and elapsed time, and reject the claim for no incremental benefit or material adverse effects."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES for the synthetic step. Cost scope is uncertain, but it is not an independent safety, authority, problem, adopter, or testability stop and can be measured during the bounded study."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is a concrete partner-authorized experiment with specified participants, comparators, outcomes, safeguards, stopping rules, and falsification thresholds, not an open-ended request for additional research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A registered audit firm, professional accounting body, or audit-research center working with an authorized firm independence, ethics, quality-control, or acceptance leader and able to recruit volunteer audit and ethics personnel for a synthetic-only study.","required_access":"Authorization to recruit representative audit and ethics personnel; a sanitized description of ordinary confirmation, consultation, acceptance, and escalation roles; permission to model those routes in a mock workflow; facilitator and accessibility review; anonymous outcome collection; and professional-time accounting. No live client, personal, privileged, or production-system data are required.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister and run a synthetic study with 12–16 participants per arm. Both arms receive the same invented engagement packet and mock ordinary independence workflow; the treatment arm also receives the complete boundary cycle. A blinded reviewer scores absent-user and commercial-incentive recognition, identification of uncertain services and roles, correct routing with owner and due point, and rejection of group mapping as official approval. Collect anonymous safety, consultation-willingness, accessibility, authority-confusion, false-assurance, and elapsed-time measures, plus actual hours by role.","success_condition":"The treatment exceeds the ordinary workflow and a streamlined ethics-discussion or form-plus-confidential-consultation comparator on preregistered recognition or correct-routing outcomes by the specified minimum effect, while not materially worsening pressure, privacy concern, consultation willingness, accessibility, authority clarity, false assurance, or time burden.","falsification_condition":"The claim is falsified if the cycle produces no prespecified incremental recognition or routing benefit, a simpler comparator performs as well with less burden, or the cycle materially increases compulsion, privacy risk, reluctance to consult, authority confusion, false assurance, accessibility failure, or workload. The session must stop if real client or personal independence information is introduced.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner candidate because adjacent practice already covers most operational functions, yet a differentiated and falsifiable behavioral claim remains. External evidence supports the underlying independence problem and identifies authorized adopters, while the unresolved questions concern actual incremental effect, safety, hierarchy, workflow fit, and burden. Those questions require controlled access to representative professionals and cannot be settled through further public web research."}