{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"buffering__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["audit evidence request management software PBC portal workflow priority due date version history","audit evidence queue review workload context switching submissions financial audit"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["prepared by client PBC list audit evidence tracking workflow","audit client collaboration evidence request status version history"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["audit evidence management software PBC request portal workflow","ISA 500 audit evidence timeliness reliability source official","PCAOB audit evidence documentation review standard"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["audit evidence immutable version timestamp expiration priority queue capacity escalation","PBC request risk priority due date audit evidence versioning"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"No retained source described the complete combination of capped inbound capacity, evidence-version sealing, maximum holding age, service-rate-controlled release, critical-item bypass, and explicit overflow escalation."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Auditor Perceptions of Audit Workloads, Audit Quality, and Job Satisfaction","publisher":"Digital Commons at Trinity University / SSRN Electronic Journal","url":"https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/busadmin_faculty/36/","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A survey of more than 700 auditors found peak busy-season workloads substantially above respondents' perceived audit-quality impairment threshold.","Respondents identified deadlines and staffing shortages as major workload drivers and associated high workload with compromised procedures and impaired judgment."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"AS 1105: Audit Evidence","publisher":"Public Company Accounting Oversight Board","url":"https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS1105","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Auditors must obtain sufficient appropriate evidence, and evidence relevance depends partly on procedure timing.","Reliability depends on source and circumstances; company-provided electronic information requires evaluation of its receipt, maintenance, processing, and modifications.","Workflow staging cannot substitute for auditor judgment about evidence sufficiency, relevance, reliability, or necessary follow-up procedures."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Auditi Features: PBC Management & Client Collaboration","publisher":"Auditi","url":"https://www.auditi.com/pbc","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["The product identifies email and shared-folder practices as causing lost request context, manual status reconstruction, and difficulty matching files to requests, versions, and reviewers.","It provides structured request lists, due dates, preparer and reviewer assignments, waiting-for-review and accepted/rejected states, document-version history, delivery timestamps, and audit trails.","This establishes close adjacent practice for traceable evidence intake and review status, but the opened page does not specify a fixed queue limit, maximum holding age, capacity-governed release, or overflow escalation."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Request Board","publisher":"Punchcard","url":"https://guide.punchcard.com/auditor/requests-and-workpapers/request-board","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["The product bundles PBC requests, uploaded evidence, owners, due dates, priorities, workflow states, and a full audit trail.","Its workflow includes Backlog, To Do, In Progress, Review, and Done, with Backlog acting as a visibility gate before publication to the client.","The documented backlog gates outbound requests rather than admitting completed inbound evidence into a capacity-bounded reviewer queue, and no packet-expiration or overflow rule is described."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The problem is visible at a coarse level: primary survey evidence supports deadline-driven busy-season workload pressure, while a first-party PBC product documents email/shared-folder context loss, manual status reconstruction, version-matching problems, and evidence waiting for review. The retained sources do not directly establish the proposal's narrower sequence of short submission bursts causing reviewer interruptions or quantify how often pending evidence becomes stale or is replaced before examination.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Auditi PBC Management and Client Collaboration","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Centralizes evidence by request; assigns preparers and reviewers; tracks due dates, review states, versions, delivery times, comments, and an evidence trail.","remaining_difference":"No documented fixed admission capacity, completeness gate, maximum packet age, validity expiration, controlled release matched to reviewer service rate, critical bypass, or full-buffer escalation."},{"name":"Punchcard Request Board","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Provides an explicit backlog and multi-stage audit-request workflow with priorities, due dates, owners, uploaded evidence, review status, and audit trail.","remaining_difference":"Its backlog controls when auditor-created requests become client-visible, not when submitted evidence becomes available to reviewers; the opened documentation does not describe capacity bounds, version sealing at admission, expiration, rate-controlled drainage, or overflow escalation."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Relative to an ordinary versioned PBC request board with priority and review statuses, adding a fixed-capacity inbound stage with completeness admission, sealed packet identity, maximum age, service-rate release, critical-item bypass, and explicit overflow escalation will reduce reviewer task switches during a temporary burst while producing no critical-item delay or additional lineage error and still draining within the predefined window.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"In the predefined replay, the buffered condition fails to reduce reviewer task switches, delays any critical packet, increases expirations, re-requests, or version-lineage errors, breaches capacity without timely escalation, or remains undrained after arrivals return below review capacity. Discovery that an existing practice already implements the complete claimed structure would also erase the prior-art contrast.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct wording, PBC and older practice terminology, products, an official auditing standard, empirical workload research, and combinations of workflow components. Exactly four opened sources span four publishers or repositories and include primary research, an official standard, and two first-party products.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The problem meets the screen's partly-supported threshold: busy-season workload and deadline pressure are empirically visible, and product documentation independently identifies evidence-context, version, review-status, and manual-reconstruction problems in email/shared-folder workflows. Burst-specific interruption and staleness prevalence remain unverified.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Adjacent products cover request boards, priorities, review states, and version trails, but the retained material does not disclose the proposal's combined capacity, aging, controlled-drain, bypass, and overflow mechanism. Its incremental effect can be tested against those ordinary tracker features.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A de-identified or synthetic replay of at most 40 packets over five simulated days is tightly bounded and can compare direct assignment with buffered release using occupancy, age, critical delay, expirations, lineage errors, task switches, and end-of-window drainage. It changes no live audit evidence or conclusion.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A synthetic tabletop replay presents no obvious authority stop if auditors retain all sufficiency and reliability judgments, critical fraud, legal, and reporting matters bypass the queue, and no buffered item is represented as reviewed. PCAOB requirements make timing, reliability, maintenance, modification history, and sufficient appropriate evidence mandatory constraints rather than delegable workflow decisions.","source_ids":["SRC2"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent prior art but cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unsearched proprietary systems, internal firm procedures, patents, and non-indexed materials may contain closer matches."}