{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"authority_legitimacy_and_consent_foundations__chemistry_materials","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["shared battery research facility electrolyte approval glovebox contamination user facility","battery glovebox user policy contamination electrolyte approval purge"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":null},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["laboratory chemical hygiene plan prior approval hazardous chemicals operations OSHA","shared research facility user committee governance policy appeals facility manager"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["battery manufacturing user facility proposal safety review electrolyte glovebox shared equipment","core facility advisory committee charter users conflict of interest appeals"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["shared research facility user committee charter appeal conflict of interest review proposal","scientific advisory committee terms of reference expertise conflict recusal decision record confidentiality independent review"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Standard Operating Procedures for Glove Box","publisher":"University of Maryland NanoCenter FabLab","url":"https://nanocenter.umd.edu/equipment/cswanglab/sops/cswang-01/cswang-01-Glovebox%20Standard%20operation%20Procedures%20.pdf","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["The battery-assembly glovebox requires lab-staff preapproval for all transferred materials and permission and training before use.","Chemicals are prohibited unless approved by the lab director or a lab member.","Noncompliant contamination can require a complete argon purge, impose costs exceeding $500, and leave the unit unavailable for six weeks or more."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Administration of Shared Research Facilities","publisher":"University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee","url":"https://uwm.edu/policy/library/administration-of-shared-research-facilities/","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["The policy was created partly to delineate shared-facility administration and resolve conflicts between users.","A home unit designates a facility manager who establishes access rules, functional restrictions, and conflict-resolution mechanisms; an optional advisory group reviews policies and includes technical staff and regular users.","Written user agreement, manager approval, record retention, designated dispute adjudicators, timelines, and escalation through the home unit, Provost, and Chancellor are established practices."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories, 29 CFR 1910.1450","publisher":"U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration","url":"https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1450","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Covered employers must implement a written Chemical Hygiene Plan with safety procedures, control criteria, training, responsible personnel, and circumstances requiring prior employer or designee approval.","The standard expressly addresses gloveboxes, contaminated-waste removal, decontamination, employee access to the plan, and annual review.","Its authority concerns occupational health and hazardous-chemical exposure rather than the full range of scientific compatibility and shared-resource judgments in the proposal."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees and Councils: CoPSAC 2021","publisher":"UK Government Office for Science","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-committees-code-of-practice/code-of-practice-for-scientific-advisory-committees-and-councils-copsac-2021","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Established scientific-committee governance uses sponsor-defined terms of reference, explicit remits and reporting lines, balanced expertise, consideration of affected-community perspectives, and periodic independent review.","The code requires interest declarations, withdrawal from conflicted matters, official recording, documented proceedings that reveal how conclusions were reached, and secure handling of sensitive information.","This is a close governance archetype, but it governs scientific advice rather than binding electrolyte admission to shared battery equipment."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The operational problem is visible: a battery glovebox practice gives lab personnel material-admission authority, restricts chemicals, and identifies contamination, purge cost, and lengthy downtime as consequences; shared-facility policy also recognizes user conflicts and the need to delineate authority. The stronger local diagnosis—comparable requests receiving inconsistent or undocumented decisions, users disputing the manager's standing, private exceptions, covertly introduced formulations, or inability to distinguish EHS vetoes from compatibility judgments—was not directly demonstrated by the retained public sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"UWM shared-research-facility governance and conflict-escalation policy","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Institutional delegation to a facility manager, written access rules and user agreement, technical-staff and user participation in an advisory group, record retention, conflict-resolution procedures, and multilevel escalation.","remaining_difference":"The advisory group is optional and advisory; the policy does not specify a binding electrolyte-admission council, decision-level evidence and reason records, technical conflict-of-interest recusals, separation from EHS authority, or independent remand criteria."},{"name":"University of Maryland battery-glovebox material preapproval practice","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Binding staff approval for materials and chemicals entering battery-assembly equipment, user permission and training, and explicit contamination, purge, cost, and downtime concerns.","remaining_difference":"Approval rests with the lab director or staff and the SOP supplies no representative council, limited governance charter, published equipment-specific reasons, recusal mechanism, or consequential appeal."},{"name":"CoPSAC scientific-committee governance model","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Sponsor-defined mandate and remit, competence-balanced membership, affected-community perspective, conflict disclosure and withdrawal, documented reasoning and audit trail, confidentiality controls, independence, and periodic review.","remaining_difference":"It concerns advisory bodies and does not authorize binding operational admission decisions, represent dependent shared-facility users as such, distinguish council judgments from an EHS veto, or provide case-level appeal and remand for electrolyte use."},{"name":"OSHA Chemical Hygiene Plan and prior-approval framework","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Written authority, control criteria, qualified responsible personnel or committee, prior approval, glovebox controls, decontamination, information access, and recurring review.","remaining_difference":"It is an occupational-safety framework and does not establish legitimacy for non-statutory contamination, equipment-compatibility, segregation, or shared-resource tradeoffs."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For non-statutory electrolyte compatibility, contamination, segregation, and purge decisions on named shared battery equipment, the proposed pilot uniquely claims the integrated use of limited written delegation, explicit separation from EHS authority, affected-user and technician representation, domain-matched competence, evidence-linked case reasons with proprietary redaction, project-specific recusals, and independent case remand. The retained sources establish nearly all components separately or in adjacent governance settings, but no opened source implements the full combination for binding electrolyte admission.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified by an existing shared battery or comparable chemical facility that already applies substantially this full combination to material-admission cases, or by retrospective evidence that the current manager process already has recognized bounded jurisdiction, affected-party representation, competence and recusal controls, intelligible evidence-linked reasons, clear separation from EHS determinations, and review capable of changing unsupported or out-of-scope outcomes.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct battery-glovebox admission and contamination terms, prior-approval and chemical-hygiene terminology, shared-facility policies, committee charters, user representation, conflict rules, reason records, confidentiality, review, and appeals. Four opened official sources from four publishers were retained.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Material preapproval, contamination-driven purging and downtime, binding access rules, and shared-user conflicts are directly visible, although the proposal's specific legitimacy failures remain only partly supported.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The remaining claim is the application and effect of a specified integrated legitimacy package for non-EHS electrolyte-admission decisions, distinguishable from staff preapproval, generic facility governance, safety compliance, and advisory-committee practice; it has an explicit falsifier.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed single-session tabletop with six de-identified historical or synthetic cases can measure identification of decision rights, jurisdiction, competence, representation, conflicts, reasons, and appeal, plus detection and remand of a deliberately defective decision, without enacting an outcome.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The first test introduces no material, changes no access or operating rule, preserves employer and EHS safety authority, protects formulation details through de-identification, and makes only simulated decisions. Its halt conditions cover jurisdiction confusion, unsafe or confidential disclosure, and undisclosed conflicts.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This four-source bounded screen establishes neither world novelty nor patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value. It found close adjacent practices for battery-glovebox material approval, shared-facility authority and escalation, statutory chemical prior approval, and legitimacy-oriented scientific-committee governance; it did not find an opened source documenting their full integration as a binding electrolyte-admission authority."}