{"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":"The proposal retains a falsifiable incremental claim: versus an equal-time static directive-and-action checklist using identical mock capabilities, the governed recurring observance should improve correctly authorized, verified stewardship actions and conflict detection without increasing privacy violations, coercion, distress, or incomplete actions."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Primary research, systematic review evidence, professional-body statements, and official platform documentation independently support fragmented post-mortem access, privacy, security, remembrance, succession, and evolving-platform problems."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A digital-legacy professional body such as the Digital Legacy Association or a university HCI lab is a concrete research-partner class able to support recruitment, governance, facilitation, and independent evaluation; platforms and recognized fiduciaries are identifiable later-stage authorizers."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Resolving the remaining incremental-effect, workflow, authority-classification, acceptability, and safety uncertainties requires controlled participation by living volunteer dyads, independent adjudication, and research governance that public information cannot provide. Production platform access is not required for the safe first test."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed study uses consenting living volunteers and synthetic or participant-controlled redacted replicas, changes no production account, shares no passwords, simulates all platform actions, provides private opt-out and halt paths, and includes independent safety monitoring."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"A preregistered 12–24-dyad comparison against an equal-time checklist can measure authority accuracy, verified completion, conflict detection, handoff, exposure, coercion, distress, accessibility failures, and halts, with explicit proceed/adapt/hold/retire and falsification rules."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES, including problem support, adopter or authorizer credibility, testable increment, bounded evidence step, and absence of an unresolved safety or authority stop. Cost is uncertain rather than negative and is not the sole rationale for partnership."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action specifies the partner class, participants, comparator, controlled artifacts, allocation, measures, independent adjudication, safety thresholds, decision verdict, and conditions that would reject the incremental claim."}},"uncertainty_types":["ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A digital-legacy professional body or university HCI laboratory able to recruit consenting living volunteer–designated-contact dyads, provide ethics and privacy governance, supply grief-informed facilitation and independent safety and authority reviewers, and evaluate a sandbox comparator study without implying platform endorsement.","required_access":"Access to 12–24 consenting living-volunteer dyads, their participant-controlled redacted or synthetic account replicas and recorded preferences, qualified facilitation, private reporting channels, and independent authority and safety adjudication. No production accounts, deceased-person data, bereaved participants, or privileged platform interfaces are needed 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, authority briefing, and action menu. Compare authority assignment, verified simulated actions, unresolved-conflict detection, role handoff, unauthorized disclosure or access attempts, distress, coercion, unwanted exposure, accessibility failures, opt-outs, and facilitator halts; independently adjudicate outcomes and issue a proceed/adapt/hold/retire verdict.","success_condition":"The observance meets preregistered material-improvement thresholds over the checklist for correctly authorized and verified actions or detection of unresolved conflicts, completes handoffs reliably, and stays within prespecified noninferiority or zero-tolerance safety thresholds for authority errors, privacy exposure, coercion, distress, accessibility failures, and incomplete actions.","falsification_condition":"The observance fails the preregistered improvement threshold, most participants judge its ritualized components unnecessary, or it increases authority errors, privacy exposure, coercion, distress, unwanted exposure, accessibility failures, facilitator halts, or uncompleted actions relative to the checklist.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: substantial adjacent practice exists, but the integrated recurring, consent-aware, witnessed, audited observance retains a specific comparator-based claim. The underlying problem and plausible partners are externally supported, while the decisive remaining questions concern live comparative effect, workflow fit, authority handling, and safety—questions that cannot be settled through ordinary public research and can be tested safely in a bounded sandbox."}