{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__nanotechnology:P1:v0","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__nanotechnology","proposal_index":1,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific, falsifiable incremental claim: adding the governed 12-minute lifecycle enactment to a strengthened checklist and briefing will improve immediate and delayed individual accuracy about custody obligations without increasing errors, pressure, or false-certification interpretations."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official guidance and primary research establish consequential nanomaterial lifecycle hazards, continuing stewardship duties, and variable implementation of controls. The narrower transfer-ownership gap remains unmeasured, but it is a credible empirical subproblem rather than unsupported problem fishing."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A nanomaterial research facility with an accountable director, independent EHS representative, and cross-functional synthesis, fabrication, characterization, and waste-handling staff is a concrete partner class able to authorize and participate in the test."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Partner access is required to determine whether ownership disagreement occurs in actual workflows, whether facility leaders want the intervention, and whether real participants experience pressure, accessibility problems, workflow friction, or certification confusion; these uncertainties cannot be resolved through public research."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is conditionally bounded by written facility-director and independent-EHS approval, uses volunteers, fictitious records, an inert token, and no operational materials, preserves opt-out and stop-work rights, and includes immediate halt and rollback provisions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed counter-ordered tabletop directly compares checklist-plus-briefing against the identical baseline plus the observance, uses immediate and 48–72-hour individual measures, blinded error coding, anonymous safety measures, and explicit advancement and falsification rules."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified gate is materially NO: the specific problem prevalence and adopter pull are uncertain, but the incremental claim, credible authorizer class, bounded test, safety controls, and cost scope remain viable. Operational deployment is explicitly outside the authorization boundary."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is a partner-authorized, preregistered comparative tabletop with named participants, conditions, measurements, timing, reviewer roles, and no-go criteria, not an open-ended request for further research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"One nanomaterial research facility with a director empowered to authorize a non-operational tabletop, an independent EHS representative, and a small volunteer group spanning synthesis, fabrication, characterization, safety, and waste handling.","required_access":"Written tabletop authorization; access to cross-functional volunteers and institution-specific consent, privacy, accessibility, records, labor, and review requirements; optionally, de-identified recent launch or transfer records and independent staff interviews to establish the trigger condition.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister and run two counter-ordered fictitious custody-transfer scenarios with the same volunteer group: a strengthened checklist plus conventional briefing, and the identical baseline plus the Visible Boundary observance. Measure individual owner, deadline, unresolved-uncertainty, downstream-party, and stop-condition answers immediately and after 48–72 hours; obtain anonymous pressure, accessibility, and certification-confusion reports; and have a blinded independent safety reviewer code omissions, invalid commitments, and false closure.","success_condition":"Compared with the strengthened-checklist condition, the observance produces a prespecified meaningful improvement in ownership accuracy or delayed recall, creates no increase in omissions, invalid commitments, or false closure, and yields no consequential refusal, certification confusion, accessibility failure, or delay to ordinary safety processes.","falsification_condition":"Do not advance if the observance fails to improve the prespecified accuracy or delayed-recall outcome, performs worse than the comparator, creates additional errors or false commitments, makes refusal consequential or conspicuous, causes any participant to interpret completion as safety certification, or interferes with ordinary safety processes.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: adjacent prior art leaves a differentiated comparator-based claim, credible nanomaterial stewardship concerns, and a feasible low-risk tabletop, while the decisive uncertainties concern institution-specific problem prevalence, adopter pull, incremental effect, and participant experience. A qualified facility partner is therefore necessary, and the proposed test can resolve those uncertainties without exposing participants to nanomaterials or authorizing operational use."}