{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","cell_id":"agentic_control_loop_design__accounting_auditing","arm":"BREADTH_PROBE_ONE_SHOT","candidate_id":"agentic_control_loop_design__accounting_auditing__P1","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Bounded Reconciliation-Exception Steward Loop","problem":"During period-end close, a staff accountant is assigned responsibility for resolving aged reconciliation exceptions between an operational subledger and the general ledger, yet cannot reliably pursue that outcome. The accountant sees exception amounts but may lack transaction-level source records, authority to request corrections from upstream teams, permission to post adjustments, criteria for choosing investigative actions, and feedback showing whether a correction removed the underlying discrepancy. Exceptions therefore circulate through comments, approvals, and repeated escalations without a coupled path from diagnosis to corrective action.","actors":["Reconciliation accountant serving as exception steward","Upstream transaction-processing teams","General-ledger control owner","Controller or delegated close manager","Internal audit or compliance observer"],"observable_state":"For a defined reconciliation, the exception log shows items carried across close cycles, repeated requests for the same evidence, escalations without a documented investigative decision, adjustments rejected late because authority was unclear, or items marked resolved that reappear after the next subledger-to-ledger comparison.","consequence":"Financial-close evidence remains incomplete or unreliable, correction is delayed, reviewers cannot distinguish controllable stewardship failures from structural lack of access or authority, and the accountant may be held responsible for balances they could not observe or change.","affected_objective":"Produce a timely, supportable reconciliation in which each material exception is corrected, explicitly accepted within policy, or escalated with a traceable rationale before close certification.","intervention":"Install a bounded steward loop for one reconciliation class. At assignment, the controller and accountant complete a briefback that states the target balance condition, materiality and timing constraints, known system boundaries, and unresolved assumptions. An Agency Loop Map then links each exception to observable evidence, a Safe Action Menu, required access, decision authority, and expected feedback. The accountant may independently execute low-risk actions such as retrieving approved records, requesting standardized evidence, rerunning the reconciliation, tracing ledger lineage, and proposing—but not posting—an adjustment. Selection rules prioritize actions by diagnostic value, close deadline, and risk. Posting entries, changing accounting policy, overriding controls, contacting restricted parties, or accepting unexplained differences remains outside the boundary and requires escalation. After each authorized action, the reconciliation result and reviewer disposition feed an Action-Effect Feedback Review; contradicted assumptions are recorded in a Model Assumption Register and alter the next selected action. Accountability records which outcomes were actually observable and controllable by the steward.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Represented Goal","domain_realization":"A stated target that the reconciliation difference is corrected, policy-permitted, or formally escalated with sufficient evidence by the close deadline."},{"archetype_element":"World Model","domain_realization":"The steward's documented account of transaction flows, source systems, posting interfaces, timing differences, ownership boundaries, and candidate causes of each exception."},{"archetype_element":"Observation Channel","domain_realization":"Approved access to transaction detail, ledger lineage, prior-period support, workflow status, and rerun results."},{"archetype_element":"Action Repertoire","domain_realization":"A bounded set of evidence requests, record traces, reconciliation reruns, classifications, adjustment proposals, and escalations."},{"archetype_element":"Selection Policy","domain_realization":"Choose the permitted next action offering the greatest diagnostic value within materiality, deadline, access, and control-risk constraints."},{"archetype_element":"Legitimate Action Boundary","domain_realization":"The steward may investigate and recommend within the menu but may not post entries, change policy, waive evidence, override controls, or accept residual differences."},{"archetype_element":"Execution Capability","domain_realization":"Named system access, request templates, response deadlines, and an identified upstream contact for each data source."},{"archetype_element":"Effect Feedback Loop","domain_realization":"Each action is followed by a reconciliation rerun or reviewer disposition tied to the specific exception."},{"archetype_element":"Model Update Rule","domain_realization":"If an action fails to change the predicted records or balance, the causal assumption is marked contradicted and the next action must use a revised explanation."},{"archetype_element":"Proportional Accountability Frame","domain_realization":"The close record separates delays within the steward's control from missing access, upstream nonresponse, approval latency, and prohibited actions."},{"archetype_element":"Override and Escalation Path","domain_realization":"Material, suspicious, policy-sensitive, access-restricted, or deadline-threatening exceptions move immediately to the controller and, where required, compliance or internal audit."},{"archetype_element":"Agency Health Signal","domain_realization":"For each open exception, the log indicates whether the steward currently has a testable explanation, at least one permitted next action, required access, and timely effect feedback."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"agency_loop_map","role":"Makes breaks among the reconciliation goal, evidence, causal assumptions, permitted actions, execution access, and feedback visible for each exception.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the map, the workflow can assign an owner while leaving missing access, authority, action options, or feedback undiscovered."},{"mechanism_slug":"safe_action_menu","role":"Gives the steward real but bounded investigative choices while preserving posting, policy, independence, and control restrictions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the menu, the steward either waits for case-by-case permission or improvises actions that may breach controls."},{"mechanism_slug":"briefback_or_intent_confirmation","role":"Tests whether the steward and controller share the same target condition, materiality constraints, assumptions, and escalation triggers before work begins.","counterfactual_removal":"Without briefback, apparent progress may pursue a zero difference even when the appropriate outcome is documented acceptance or escalation."},{"mechanism_slug":"action_effect_feedback_review","role":"Links each investigative or corrective action to a rerun result and reviewer response that can guide the next choice.","counterfactual_removal":"Without action-linked review, outcomes become retrospective judgments and cannot update the steward's model during the close."},{"mechanism_slug":"model_assumption_register","role":"Records causal hypotheses and forces revision when transaction evidence or balance effects contradict them.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the register, failed explanations can be repeated across reviewers or close cycles without explicit learning."}],"causal_chain":["The controller and steward make the reconciliation target, constraints, and escalation conditions explicit.","The Agency Loop Map reveals which exceptions lack observations, feasible actions, authority, execution access, or feedback.","The controller supplies missing access or reassigns responsibility, and authorizes a Safe Action Menu within the existing control boundary.","The steward selects a permitted action using the documented exception model and risk-sensitive selection rule.","The executed action produces transaction evidence, a changed reconciliation result, or a reviewer disposition.","The Action-Effect Feedback Review compares that result with the steward's prediction.","Contradicted assumptions update the Model Assumption Register and change the next action or trigger escalation.","The close record attributes resolution and delay according to actual observability and controllability rather than nominal ownership."],"baseline":"A conventional reconciliation checklist and exception tracker assign owners, due dates, status labels, and reviewer sign-off, while investigative actions, access dependencies, causal assumptions, decision limits, and action-specific feedback remain implicit or are handled through ad hoc escalation.","nearest_rivals":["A responsibility-assignment matrix that clarifies who prepares, reviews, approves, or posts but does not couple authority to a live exception model and feedback.","A close-management dashboard that displays aging and status but does not provide a permitted action path or update causal assumptions.","A standardized reconciliation procedure that prescribes uniform steps and escalation but offers little bounded adaptation when exception causes differ.","Root-cause analysis performed after close, which may explain recurring discrepancies but does not create an in-close perception-action-feedback loop."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Compared with an exception tracker plus responsibility matrix, this intervention's distinguishing claim is that an assigned accountant can adapt during the close only when each exception's target, causal model, permitted choices, execution access, authority boundary, action-linked feedback, and update rule are coupled; ownership and visibility alone are insufficient.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The controller retains authority over journal posting, accounting judgments, residual-difference acceptance, policy interpretation, control overrides, and close certification. The reconciliation accountant receives only the enumerated investigative discretion. Internal audit or compliance retains independent access and escalation rights where applicable.","authorized_first_step":"For one selected reconciliation, map five recently closed or currently open exceptions against goal, observations, assumptions, permitted actions, access, authority, feedback, and escalation fields without changing balances or permissions.","excluded_actions":["Posting, reversing, or approving journal entries","Changing accounting policy, materiality thresholds, or reconciliation criteria","Waiving required evidence or control review","Editing source transactions or production-system configurations","Concealing, suppressing, or unilaterally accepting unexplained differences","Expanding system access without existing authorization","Contacting restricted parties outside approved communication channels","Interfering with internal or external auditor independence"],"halt_rollback":"Halt the pilot if it causes unauthorized access, bypasses segregation of duties, delays mandatory escalation, obscures audit evidence, or encourages premature resolution. Revoke the temporary action menu, return all decisions to the existing close procedure, preserve the pilot log, and have the controller review any action already taken."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The sampled exceptions already show that accountants have timely source data, multiple authorized investigative actions, sufficient execution support, explicit selection criteria, prompt action-linked feedback, and proportional accountability; unresolved items instead arise from inherently non-discretionary approval or external confirmation delays.","problem_falsifier":"The proposed structural problem is falsified if observed waiting and repeated escalation are not associated with any missing loop link and exceptions progress no differently when access, options, authority, and feedback are present.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified as a useful repair if stewards use the complete loop as designed but it does not produce earlier informative decisions, revised assumptions, justified escalation, or clearer attribution of controllable versus uncontrollable delay than the baseline workflow.","risks":["Bounded discretion could erode segregation of duties if investigative permission is interpreted as posting authority.","Pressure to close could bias the represented goal toward eliminating differences rather than reporting them faithfully.","The map could add documentation burden during a time-constrained close.","Detailed assumptions and transaction traces could expose confidential financial information to unauthorized viewers.","Managers could use loop-health data to intensify blame instead of correcting missing control or access.","Local adaptations could create inconsistent accounting treatment if policy questions are not escalated.","A menu optimized for routine exceptions could delay fraud-related escalation if suspicion triggers are weak.","Reviewer feedback could become punitive, causing stewards to hide uncertainty rather than update their models."]},"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a read-only retrospective on one reconciliation and five exceptions from a single completed close. Using existing records and short interviews with the preparer and controller, reconstruct the baseline sequence, code whether each agency-loop component was present when decisions were made, and test whether missing components coincide with documented waits, repeated requests, unsupported closure, or late escalation. Do not alter entries, access, control ownership, or the live close. Proceed to any operational pilot only after the controller validates the reconstruction and confirms that the proposed Safe Action Menu preserves segregation of duties and escalation requirements.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed against other proposals because runtime isolation prohibits inspecting them; this candidate was derived solely from the supplied archetype and accounting-and-auditing domain card.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial one-shot construction from the supplied archetype-domain pairing"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}