{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__chemistry_materials","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["battery research cherry picking cells selective reporting failed replicates standardized testing protocol reproducibility","battery materials common testing protocol independent validation scale up facility selection","battery materials scale-up facility access selection proposals"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":"The bounded search found separate battery-benchmarking and scarce-facility allocation practices, but no exact implementation combining them with all-run disclosure, randomized samples, resource caps, staged portfolio slots, safety floors, appeals, and post-scale-up recalibration. This phrase-level absence is not evidence of novelty."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["battery round robin interlaboratory comparison common protocol cell testing","battery material qualification gate scale-up readiness common protocol go no-go","battery research best practices report all cells failed cells electrochemical testing"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["Battery500 standardized testing protocols independent validation cells official","shared materials facility scarce access proposal peer review safety conflict appeal","user facility proposal ranking scarce access safety review appeal conflict of interest policy"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["battery materials contest challenge standardized samples blinded testing rules","pilot manufacturing facility battery access proposal review criteria safety","battery challenge competition rules standardized testing multiple winners safety criteria"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"No retained source combined battery-specific common testing with the full proposed contest-governance bundle; the components appeared in adjacent research and user-facility practices."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Benchmarking the reproducibility of all-solid-state battery cell performance","publisher":"Nature Energy","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01634-3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A 21-group interlaboratory study found large differences in all-solid-state-cell assembly conditions and electrochemical performance despite common supplied materials and a specified cycling protocol.","The study reports limited comparability, a 43% cell-failure rate, and recommends triplicate reporting, error ranges, processing parameters, and numbers of failed cells.","Common materials, raw-data sharing, coordinated analysis, and standardized pressures or testing are established approaches to improving battery-result comparability."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Evaluation of Cathode Materials with Lithium-Metal Anodes: Baseline Performance and Protocol Standardization of Coin Cells","publisher":"Argonne National Laboratory","url":"https://www.anl.gov/argonne-scientific-publications/pub/177749","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Standardized electrochemical protocols are used to enable reliable one-to-one comparisons of cathode materials across research entities.","Two protocols were applied to four commercial cathode materials to establish benchmark metrics for screening new materials.","Battery-material protocol standardization and benchmark-based screening therefore predate the proposal."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"User Proposal Review and Evaluation Process","publisher":"Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory","url":"https://cnm.anl.gov/pages/proposal-review-and-evaluation-process","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["A shared materials user facility already conducts feasibility and safety review before external peer scoring and allocates limited access primarily by rank order.","Its process includes confidentiality, reviewer conflict disclosure, numerical scoring, resource-availability and hazard considerations, applicant feedback, revision, and resubmission.","Demand for limited facility resources can exhaust available time, making governed ranking of scientific proposals an established facility practice."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Review Process","publisher":"FACET-II, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory","url":"https://facet-ii.slac.stanford.edu/proposals/review-process","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["An official user-facility process expressly treats facility access as a scarce resource requiring fair and transparent peer review.","Scientific review is separated from technical-feasibility and safety review, with scheduling contingent on further safety development.","A documented, time-bounded ratings appeal process is an established component of scarce research-facility allocation."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The core comparability problem is directly visible: battery results vary greatly across laboratories because assembly and test conditions differ, failed cells are material to interpretation, and common protocols are needed. Scarce shared-facility access governed by rankings is also documented. The retained sources do not directly establish that battery teams currently win pilot-scale synthesis slots through cherry-picking, excessive testing, deferred waste review, sabotage, or collusion, so those stronger causal details remain unverified.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Twenty-one-laboratory all-solid-state-battery reproducibility benchmark","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Uses common supplied materials, a specified cycling protocol, multiple cells, raw-data sharing, centralized analysis, explicit failure accounting, and reporting recommendations to improve comparability.","remaining_difference":"It is a research benchmark rather than a competition for scarce scale-up access and lacks blinded neutral qualification, resource caps, portfolio awards, appeals, non-waivable safety or sustainability floors, and post-award recalibration."},{"name":"Argonne standardized cathode-material screening protocols","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Creates standardized tests and benchmark performance metrics for reliable comparison and screening of candidate battery materials.","remaining_difference":"It standardizes technical evaluation but does not govern eligibility, evidence completeness, sample selection, testing expenditure, reviewer conflicts, scarce-slot allocation, appeals, safety and waste gates, or staged awards."},{"name":"Governed allocation of scarce national-laboratory user-facility access","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"overlap":"Uses predeclared criteria, feasibility and safety review, external scientific review, numerical ranking, resource considerations, conflict disclosure, feedback or appeals, and time-bounded facility allocation.","remaining_difference":"The documented processes rank proposed science rather than battery candidates tested through randomized, blinded common-protocol experiments; they do not require all-run disclosure, cap prior search effort, score critical-material and waste burdens, award a staged technical portfolio, or recalibrate rankings against subsequent scale-up outcomes."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For scarce battery-material scale-up slots, adding randomized sample identification, complete in-window run disclosure, neutral blinded common-protocol testing, equal testing-resource caps, non-compensable safety floors, explicit critical-material and waste measures, two staged awards, and outcome-based recalibration to ordinary proposal review will produce rankings that are less sensitive to selective evidence and scoring weights and more predictive of held-out pilot-scale reproducibility than dossier-based committee judgment alone.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if a preregistered retrospective comparison shows that the governed ranking is no more stable across reasonable weight sets and no more predictive of existing held-out pilot outcomes than the baseline committee decision, or if omission of failed runs, prior testing volume, protocol choices, hazardous-operation burden, and resource intensity can still materially improve rank under the governed procedure.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct phrasing, older round-robin and interlaboratory terminology, battery protocols and facility practices, and combinations of testing, allocation, safety, conflicts, and appeals. Exactly four opened sources from three publishers were retained, including two primary studies and two official facility sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Primary research supports severe battery-test non-comparability and the importance of replicate and failure reporting, while official facility guidance establishes that limited research access is allocated competitively. Evidence is partial because the proposed strategic misconduct mechanisms were not directly measured.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although standardized battery testing and governed facility allocation are established separately, the remaining claim concerns the measurable incremental effect of their specified integration on ranking stability, gaming sensitivity, and prediction of held-out scale-up outcomes.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A six-dossier, two-reviewer, two-day retrospective re-score using existing de-identified records, three predeclared weight sets, and any held-out pilot outcomes is bounded, reversible, and capable of rejecting the contrastive claim without changing facility access.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first test requires no synthesis, cell fabrication, hazardous handling, personnel sanction, or allocation change. Official precedents also separate scientific ranking from feasibility and safety authority. The exercise must stop if de-identification, record adequacy, conflict separation, confidentiality, or safety-floor validity fails.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen establishes only that the proposal is researchable and adjacent to documented battery benchmarking and scarce-facility governance. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, implementation feasibility beyond the bounded retrospective test, or realized scientific, safety, environmental, or allocation value."}