{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"feedback_loop_redirection__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["\"recurrence-weighted\" audit remediation","\"provisional closure\" audit finding recurrence","internal audit recurring findings closure root cause performance metrics repeat findings"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":"No exact implementation was found for recurrence-weighted provisional closure credit; broader searches found closely related follow-up, effectiveness-verification, and performance-measurement practices."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["repeat audit findings recurring observations sustained corrective action effectiveness verification","repeat versus recurring findings audit corrective action"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["IIA standards follow-up action plans root cause recurring findings internal audit","audit management software recurring findings root cause closure validation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["internal audit KPI repeat findings closure timeliness performance score root cause","audit issue validation closure sustained remediation recurrence repeat issue"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Global Internal Audit Standards","publisher":"The Institute of Internal Auditors","url":"https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/site/standards/globalinternalauditstandards_2024january9_printable.pdf","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Internal audit must monitor implementation of management action plans using an established methodology.","Risk-based follow-up assessments may confirm that completed action plans effectively addressed findings.","Tracking systems can preserve each finding, corrective action, status, and internal-audit confirmation."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Defining, Measuring, and Communicating the Value of Internal Audit","publisher":"Internal Audit Foundation and Dallas IIA","url":"https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/documents/internal-audit-foundation/iaf-premier-global-research-study/2020-0635-fnd-measuring-value-report_fnl.pdf","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["The number of findings and recommendations is an easily counted output but does not by itself characterize internal-audit value.","Timely closure of audit issues was used as an internal-audit KPI by 55.69% of surveyed participants.","The report warns that closure performance is affected by the auditee and recommends transparent, objective-aligned measurement models."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Audit Management Software","publisher":"HaloSafe Private Limited","url":"https://haloehs.com/modules/audit-management","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["The product links findings, corrective actions, verification methods, closure evidence, and later audit records.","The vendor identifies repeat findings as a consequence of actions closed without verified effectiveness.","The product supports evidence-based closure, effectiveness re-checks, and recurrence detection, demonstrating that several intervention components are already commercially practiced."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Repeat Versus Recurring Findings in EHS Audits","publisher":"EHS Journal","url":"https://ehsjournal.org/lawrence-cahill-robert-costello/ehs-audits-repeat-findings-versus-recurring-findings/2012/","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["Repeat-finding definitions vary across audit programs and can depend on citation identity, substantive similarity, or auditor discretion.","The article distinguishes systemic repeat findings from isolated recurring events by examining the underlying control or management-system cause.","It recommends explicit classification rules to reduce disputes and warns against unjustified punishment or sanctions."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The problem's observable ingredients are visible: finding counts and timely closure are used as performance measures, closure may occur without verified effectiveness, and repeat findings can reveal unresolved systemic causes. The retained evidence does not directly demonstrate the full proposed behavioral mechanism—that auditors atomize findings or control owners prefer documentary fixes because those metrics reward them—so that incentive pathway remains an empirical hypothesis.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Risk-based follow-up and effectiveness confirmation under the Global Internal Audit Standards","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Requires monitoring action plans, permits independent follow-up after reported completion, and calls for confirmation that actions effectively addressed findings while preserving finding-level records.","remaining_difference":"It does not prescribe provisional performance credit, causal-theme recurrence grouping, reversal of earlier credit, or removal of favorable finding-count weight."},{"name":"Outcome-aware internal-audit performance measurement","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Recognizes finding counts and timely closure as common but incomplete performance indicators and recommends transparent measures aligned to internal-audit objectives.","remaining_difference":"It does not specify a recurrence-triggered scoring rule that retrospectively changes the consequence of closure."},{"name":"Linked verified-closure and recurrence-aware audit software","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Links findings to corrective actions and verification evidence, supports effectiveness re-checks and recurrence detection, and frames unverified closure as a cause of repeat findings.","remaining_difference":"The disclosed product practice does not make closure credit provisional or mechanically reverse performance credit when a causal theme recurs."},{"name":"Repeat-versus-recurring finding classification practice","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Groups later findings by substantive similarity and underlying control-system cause, emphasizes explicit rules, and anticipates classification disputes and sanction risks.","remaining_difference":"It classifies and escalates repeat findings but does not redirect an internal performance feedback loop through provisional-credit reversal."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Compared with effectiveness follow-up, recurrence dashboards, repeat-finding classification, and verified-closure software, the remaining testable distinction is a transparent shadow performance rule that assigns only provisional remediation credit at closure and later reverses that same credit when independently observed recurrence matches the prior control objective and causal theme, while giving finding volume no favorable weight and routing the recurrence to root-cause review.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would be falsified by a pre-existing standard, deployed product, or documented audit practice that combines causal-theme grouping, provisional closure credit, later recurrence-based reversal of that credit, removal of positive finding-volume weight, and a linked root-cause-review response; it would also fail empirically if retrospective application produces no reproducible decision or score difference from ordinary verified-closure and repeat-finding practices.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered exact proposal language, broader direct terms, older repeat/recurring terminology, official standards, empirical performance-measurement research, commercial practice, and combinations of closure, recurrence, effectiveness, and root-cause components. Four opened sources from four publisher labels were retained, including an official standard, primary research, and a first-party product source.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The sources support common closure and finding-output measures, repeat failures, classification ambiguity, and the risk of closure without effectiveness verification. Support is partial because metric-induced atomization and documentary gaming were not directly established.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although every major component has adjacent precedent, the specific recurrence-triggered reversal of provisional closure credit remains distinguishable and can be compared against ordinary closure and repeat-finding treatment on historical records.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A retrospective sample of no more than 20 closed findings from two engagements, independently classified by two reviewers under preregistered rules, can measure agreement, score sensitivity, visibility of material findings, and differences from the existing dashboard without operationalizing the metric.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A retrospective shadow analysis that preserves every original finding and avoids compensation, discipline, ratings, reporting changes, or declarations of control effectiveness presents no obvious stop. Any operational use would require the organization's designated audit-governance authority and continued conformity with professional or legal duties.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen supports only an adjacent-prior-art disposition and a researchable remaining contrast. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, or realized organizational value."}