{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"activation_decay_measurement__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["audit risk briefing retention decay auditor recognition risk cues delayed testing study","auditor memory decay risk assessment fraud brainstorming reminders audit"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"no_result_note":"No retained source described the complete combination of delayed cue-specific probes, an empirically derived validity window, contextual reactivation, and mandatory expiry of briefing-based readiness."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["auditor prospective memory fraud cues implementation intentions substantive testing","auditor memory working paper review time delay information importance","fraud risk priming red flags reminder audit testing"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["PCAOB AS 2110 engagement team discussion significant risks audit responses","SAS 99 periodic fraud brainstorming audit team risk memo practice"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["auditor attention risk cues salience reminder decision aid experiment seeded misstatement","auditing just-in-time prompts decision aids fraud risk recognition contextual reminder study","auditors time pressure fraud cue recognition experiment"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"How to detect fraud in an audit: a systematic review of experimental literature","publisher":"Springer Nature / Management Review Quarterly","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11301-024-00480-7","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Auditors performing substantive procedures can fail to attend to fraud cues under ordinary practice conditions.","Fraud-risk priming and detailed plans about when and how to consider fraud can improve recognition of seeded cues and responsive actions.","The reviewed experiments mainly measure short-term effects, and the durability or long-term decline of decision-aid effects remains an open research question.","Time pressure can narrow auditors' attention to qualitative fraud indicators."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"AS 2110: Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement (effective on 12/15/2026)","publisher":"Public Company Accounting Oversight Board","url":"https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/as-2110--identifying-and-assessing-risks-of-material-misstatement-%28effective-on-12-15-2026%29","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Key engagement-team members must discuss susceptibility to material misstatement and potential fraud responses.","Important risk matters must be communicated to relevant team members, and communication should continue throughout the audit, including when conditions change.","Auditors must remain alert for conditions affecting fraud-risk assessment and probe issues or obtain additional evidence when indicated.","Risk assessment continues throughout the audit and must be revised when contradictory evidence emerges."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"The Effects of Audit Risk and Information Importance on Auditor Memory During Working Paper Review","publisher":"SSRN / The Accounting Review","url":"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=35965","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["In an experiment, auditors reviewed two working-paper areas and completed recognition judgments 24 hours later.","Auditor memory accuracy varied with the audit risk of the area and the importance of the information item.","Auditors' willingness to rely on memory was related to memory accuracy and information importance, showing that memory-based readiness is not uniform."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"A Primer for Brainstorming Fraud Risks","publisher":"Journal of Accountancy / AICPA","url":"https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2003/dec/aprimerforbrainstormingfraudrisks/","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["Fraud-risk brainstorming was described as occurring during planning and periodically during the audit.","Practice included documenting identified risks and responsive procedures, updating risk summaries as information emerged, and circulating results to absent team members.","The article identifies time pressure, competing assignments, disengagement, and deterioration of brainstorming quality as practical problems.","Periodic discussion, written risk memos, checklists, and linked electronic audit files are established reminder and communication practices."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The underlying problem is visible: experimental and review evidence shows that auditors can miss seeded fraud cues while performing planned procedures, that time pressure and divided attention worsen cue attention, and that auditor memory after 24 hours varies with risk and information importance. Standards and professional practice also require risk communication to continue beyond the planning meeting. However, the retained evidence does not directly demonstrate a reproducible briefing-to-recognition decay curve across one-, three-, and seven-day delays, nor that firms currently treat attendance as sufficient evidence of continuing cue readiness.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Austin's prospective-memory implementation-intentions intervention for fraud cues","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Professional auditors encounter seeded fraud cues during substantive testing; the intervention specifies when and how to consider fraud and improves cue attention and responsive actions.","remaining_difference":"It does not measure performance over multiple briefing-to-testing delays, fit a cue-specific decay profile, predeclare an expiry threshold, or invalidate the original briefing after that threshold."},{"name":"Periodic fraud brainstorming, documented risk-response summaries, and circulated workpaper links","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"overlap":"Engagement-specific risks and responses are communicated during planning and throughout the audit, with summaries updated and shared as work progresses.","remaining_difference":"Refresh timing is periodic or event-driven rather than derived from delayed recognition measurements, and the practice does not treat prior attendance as expired readiness evidence."},{"name":"Twenty-four-hour auditor working-paper memory assessment","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Uses delayed recognition testing to observe auditor memory for audit information and relates performance to audit risk and information importance.","remaining_difference":"It tests memory at one delay rather than estimating decay for briefed risk cues, does not score responsive procedure selection, and supplies no threshold, contextual reactivation, or workflow expiry rule."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a defined set of engagement-specific audit-risk cues, recognition and appropriate first-response performance can be measured at operationally realistic delays to establish a target-specific validity window; a context-matched refresh can restore performance outside that window; and briefing attendance can be made non-reliable as readiness evidence after the predeclared expiry boundary. The retained prior art covers delayed memory, cue priming, periodic communication, and decision aids separately, but not this integrated measurement-and-expiry rule.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified if earlier public practice or research is found that combines matched delayed probes of engagement-specific audit cues, a predeclared recognition-and-response threshold, contextual reactivation, and mandatory non-reliance on the original briefing after an empirically derived expiry point. Its empirical premise would also fail for the tested cue set if preregistered delay and context switching do not reproducibly reduce performance, or if contextual refresh does not improve independently scored simulated-workpaper decisions over a neutral card.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct phrasing, prospective-memory and older fraud-brainstorming terminology, standards and professional practices, delayed auditor-memory research, priming, decision aids, and combined cue-recognition subproblems. Four opened sources span four publishers and include official, primary, professional, and secondary evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The problem is partly supported by evidence of missed seeded fraud cues, attention impairment under time pressure, variable delayed auditor memory, and requirements for continuing risk communication. Direct evidence for a multi-day briefing-decay curve remains absent, appropriately limiting the finding to partial support.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The remaining claim specifies measurable cue detection, response selection, delays, a preregistered threshold, a refresh comparison, and an expiry consequence that distinguish it from periodic reminders and one-time priming.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A preregistered simulation with no more than 32 consenting auditors, fictional workpapers, four delay arms, blinded scoring, and a contextual-refresh versus neutral-card comparison is bounded and can falsify both the delay premise and refresh effect without changing a live audit.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The authorized first step is a disclosed, de-identified simulation using fictional records and aggregate reporting. It preserves the engagement partner's authority, auditing standards, supervision, professional judgment, and required procedures; any live-workflow use would require separate firm risk and engagement approval.","source_ids":["SRC2"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This four-source bounded public-web screen supports only an adjacent-prior-art disposition and a researchable residual claim. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, firm adoption, regulatory approval, or realized audit value; nonpublic firm methodologies, products, patents, dissertations, and inaccessible literature may contain closer matches."}