{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__religious_studies_theology:P4:v0","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__religious_studies_theology","proposal_index":4,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim is specific and falsifiable: compared with an equally resourced permission-layered registry, preservation meeting, and work-order process, the marked assembly should improve authorized recall and stewardship follow-through while reducing repeat requests without increasing disclosure, pressure, inequitable prioritization, or burden."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official and sector evidence documents documentary-heritage endangerment and concrete religious-archive loss, fragmented custody, weak collaboration, and resource scarcity, although the prevalence of administrative normalization remains unmeasured."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"Religious-archive consortia and professional networks such as ARCS and the Religious Archives Group are concrete convening and adopter classes; community-governed archive organizations provide the necessary authority-aware participant perspective."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The unresolved questions concern actual practitioner behavior, perceived pressure and burden, workflow conversion, and adopter willingness. These cannot be resolved through public sources alone and require participation from religious-archive practitioners, preservation staff, compensated community-archive advisers, and a potential host network."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step uses only fictional records and a synthetic low-sensitivity loss, transfers no authority, exposes no real community or restricted content, permits passing and exit, includes explicit halt conditions, and compares two equally resourced workflows."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"A six-to-eight-week preregistered randomized crossover tabletop with 18-30 participants, identical facts and budgets, immediate and 30-day measures, prespecified advancement thresholds, and explicit falsifiers is bounded, comparator-based, and capable of rejecting the incremental ritual claim."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES. Cost scope is uncertain, but the first test has a bounded planning range and qualification does not depend on cost uncertainty alone; real-loss deployment remains gated on separate custodian authorization and host-specific review."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is an operationally specified partner-hosted crossover experiment with defined participants, conditions, measurements, thresholds, safety stops, and a decision rule to advance or abandon the ritual layer."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A religious-archive consortium or professional network able to convene 18-30 religious-archive practitioners and preservation staff, together with at least two independent community-governed archive organizations supplying compensated advisers; the host must support accessibility, confidential evaluation, preregistration, and independent safety oversight.","required_access":"Voluntary access to practitioners, preservation staff, compensated community-archive advisers, a host facilitator, secure anonymous survey collection, and 30-day follow-up. No real collection, loss notice, sacred or restricted content, or community authorization for a live ceremony is required for the first test.","bounded_empirical_test":"Run a six-to-eight-week preregistered randomized crossover tabletop using one fictional low-sensitivity archival loss. Compare the proposed marked assembly with delayed acceptance against a permission-layered registry, ordinary preservation meeting, and work-order process using identical facts, restrictions, and capacity budgets. Measure immediate and 30-day recall accuracy, restriction and standing errors, offer-to-funded-work-order conversion, ownership and deadline clarity, repeat-request attempts, pressure, accessibility, emotional burden, and staff hours.","success_condition":"The assembly condition improves at least two prespecified stewardship outcomes relative to the comparator, with persistence at 30 days, zero authority or disclosure errors, no conditional-assistance event, and no worse pressure, accessibility, or burden; accepted offers must become budgeted, permission-conforming work orders rather than intentions.","falsification_condition":"The comparator is equivalent or better; offers remain symbolic or lack funded ownership; the assembly causes any disclosure, authority, recording, or conditional-assistance violation; pressure or burden is worse; gains do not persist at 30 days; or incremental cost exceeds the prespecified acceptable cost per additional completed work order.","rationale":"This is an appropriate empirical-partner candidate because credible archival-loss evidence and identifiable conveners exist, while the distinctive ritual increment is neither established nor answerable through further web research. Partner participation is necessary to test behavior, safety, workflow fit, and adopter pull. The synthetic crossover study can decisively determine whether the ritual layer merits a tightly authorized real-loss pilot or should be abandoned in favor of ordinary preservation governance."}