{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__human_computer_interaction:P3:v0","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__human_computer_interaction","proposal_index":3,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"A specific incremental claim remains: compared with an equal-time static checklist using identical mock controls, the governed recurring observance should improve correctly authorized and verified stewardship actions and conflict detection without increasing privacy violations, coercion, or distress."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Primary research, a systematic review, professional-body statements, and platform documentation independently support fragmented post-mortem access, privacy, security, remembrance, and lifecycle-stewardship problems."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A digital-legacy professional body, hospice-sector organization, or university HCI lab is a concrete research-partner class able to recruit participants and govern a sandbox study; platforms and recognized fiduciaries are identifiable later-stage authorizers."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The unresolved questions concern comparative participant behavior, authority classification, workflow performance, acceptability, burden, and safety. They require controlled access to consenting dyads, designated contacts, independent adjudication, and participant-controlled replicas and cannot be resolved through further public web research."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"Living volunteers can use synthetic or redacted replicas under independent safety monitoring, private opt-out and halt procedures, without memorializing, publishing, deleting, transferring, or changing any production account."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed 12–24-dyad preregistered study compares the complete observance with an equal-time static checklist using the same mock capabilities, measures authorization accuracy, verified completion, conflict detection, handoff, privacy, coercion, distress, and halts, and specifies proceed/adapt/hold/retire outcomes."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES, including problem support, credible partner class, testable claim, bounded evidence step, and absence of an unresolved safety or authority stop. Cost estimates are uncertain, but cost uncertainty alone is not a material disqualifier here."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is operationally specific: secure a study partner, preregister comparator arms and thresholds, recruit a bounded sample, run sandboxed cycles, independently adjudicate outcomes, and apply explicit falsification and safety rules."}},"uncertainty_types":["ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A digital-legacy professional body, hospice or bereavement-service research unit, or university HCI lab with ethics oversight, access to consenting living volunteers and designated legacy contacts, grief-informed facilitation, privacy/legal review, and independent safety and authority adjudication; no platform endorsement is required for the sandbox phase.","required_access":"Recruitment and consent access to 12–24 living-volunteer dyads, participant-controlled synthetic or redacted account replicas and legacy directives, designated-contact participation, secure private experience reporting, independent authority adjudication, and safety-monitoring and halt capacity. No production credentials, deceased-person data, or platform API access is required initially.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister and randomize 12–24 dyads to the complete governed observance or an equal-time static directive-and-action checklist with identical mock platform capabilities and authority briefing. Compare authority-assignment accuracy, verified closure-action completion, unresolved-conflict detection, role handoff, unauthorized disclosure or access attempts, opt-out use, coercion, distress, unwanted exposure, accessibility failures, and facilitator halts; independently adjudicate results and issue a proceed/adapt/hold/retire verdict.","success_condition":"The observance materially outperforms the checklist on prespecified verified correct-action completion or unresolved-conflict detection, demonstrates successful handoff, and does not exceed prespecified noninferiority or safety thresholds for authority errors, privacy exposure, coercion, distress, accessibility failures, halts, or unfinished actions; participants also attribute necessary stewardship value to at least some ritualized components.","falsification_condition":"The incremental claim fails if the observance does not materially improve verified correct actions or conflict detection over the equal-time checklist, most participants judge its symbolic components unnecessary, or it increases authority errors, unauthorized access or disclosure, unwanted exposure, coercion, distress, accessibility failures, facilitator halts, or uncompleted actions.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner candidate: substantial adjacent practice exists, but the integrated intervention retains a differentiated, falsifiable comparative claim. Credible problem and partner signals are present, while the decisive remaining uncertainties require live controlled testing rather than ordinary research. The proposed sandbox comparator is authorized, bounded, safety-gated, and capable of rejecting the claimed incremental value before any study involving production accounts or bereaved participants."}