{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"flow_diversion_or_rerouting__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["audit evidence request blocked custodian alternate source reroute PBC request","audit PBC request reassign owner alternate owner software"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["audit evidence alternative procedures unavailable records custodian","PCAOB audit evidence nonresponse alternative procedures source system"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["audit PBC request management software assign reassign requests audit trail","site:servicenow.com/docs audit evidence request reassign assignee"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["audit evidence request workflow authorization provenance completeness alternate source","audit evidence request alternative source system owner workflow"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"AS 2310: The Auditor’s Use of Confirmation","publisher":"Public Company Accounting Oversight Board","url":"https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS2310","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Nonresponse, incomplete response, inability to identify a suitable confirming party, unreliable responses, and unusable intermediaries are recognized evidence-path failures.","The auditor must follow up or perform alternative procedures directed toward relevant and reliable evidence for the selected item and assertion.","The auditor must maintain control over confirmation transmission and evaluate the reliability of parties, sources, and intermediaries."]},{"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":["Audit evidence must be sufficient, relevant, and reliable in relation to the assertion or control objective.","Reliability depends on source, circumstances, directness, and controls; company-produced information requires accuracy, completeness, and precision evaluation.","Evidence-source substitution cannot cure poor evidence quality, and inconsistencies or reliability doubts require additional procedures."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Request evidence using Audit","publisher":"ServiceNow","url":"https://www.servicenow.com/docs/r/governance-risk-compliance/audit-management/request-evidence-during-audits-using-audit-workspace-and-assest-audit-response.html","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["ServiceNow Audit Workspace represents evidence requests as structured tasks with a name, reason, due date, control-objective context, assignment group, responsible user, and instructions.","The product supplies a request-level assignment junction and objective context but the opened documentation does not describe impairment-triggered rerouting or alternate-path qualification."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Vanta Delivers: Information request lists (IRLs)","publisher":"Vanta","url":"https://www.vanta.com/resources/vanta-delivers-information-request-lists","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["Vanta imports an auditor’s exact request list, assigns owners, tracks collection progress, maps requests to controls and evidence, and supports internal review and approval before disclosure.","The product preserves request context and controlled review across evidence collection, but the opened source does not disclose trigger-based reassignment to a prequalified alternate custodian with rollback."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The problem is visible: PCAOB standards explicitly anticipate unavailable or unsuitable confirming parties, nonresponses, incomplete responses, unreliable evidence, and blocked intermediaries, while first-party products structure ownership, due dates, progress, control context, and review of evidence requests. These sources support blocked-path and evidence-integrity concerns, but they do not quantify queue concentration at one client custodian, resulting deadline compression, or the prevalence of independently viable alternate custodians.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Alternative procedures for failed confirmation paths","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"overlap":"Recognizes request or source failure, requires follow-up or a different evidence-acquisition procedure, preserves the relevant financial-statement assertion as the evidentiary objective, and imposes reliability and control checks on replacement evidence.","remaining_difference":"It generally substitutes an audit procedure or evidence source rather than defining selective reassignment of the same registered request to a prequalified alternate custodian through explicit path-health triggers, capacity and shared-dependency gates, a carried invariant envelope, route monitoring, and rollback or reentry."},{"name":"Structured information-request ownership and evidence workflow","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"overlap":"Provides request-level records, owners or assignees, due dates, control-objective mapping, instructions, progress tracking, evidence attachment, and controlled review before sharing.","remaining_difference":"The opened product materials do not disclose automatic or manager-governed bypass activation after a documented path impairment, alternate-route prequalification for authority and independence, preservation checks for assertion and population, shared-dependency testing, or explicit restoration of the original route."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Adding a documented impairment trigger, independently authorized alternate-path viability gate, shared-dependency check, and invariant assertion-and-control envelope to a structured evidence-request workflow will permit selective rerouting of blocked requests while preserving the original assertion, period, population, provenance, access boundary, and workpaper destination, and will reduce unresolved delay without increasing control exceptions relative to follow-up, escalation, or procedure substitution.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim fails if further product or practice documentation reveals this integrated request-level mechanism as established practice, or if the closed 20-request shadow exercise finds that triggers cannot be applied consistently, independently authorized alternate routes usually do not exist, alternate routes share the blockage, envelopes cannot be preserved, or simulated rerouting produces at least as much delay, duplication, evidence mismatch, confidentiality exposure, or control failure as the baseline.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct phrasing, PBC and information-request terminology, confirmation nonresponse and alternative-procedure terminology, official standards, commercial workflows, ownership reassignment, source reliability, authorization, provenance, completeness, and component combinations. Four opened sources from three publishers were retained.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Official standards directly recognize several evidence-path failures and the need to preserve assertion relevance and evidence reliability; products show that request ownership, due dates, status, and review are operationally observable. Evidence for the proposal’s specific single-custodian concentration mechanism is incomplete, supporting a PARTLY_SUPPORTED finding.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The closest sources separately disclose alternative procedures and structured request workflows, but not their integration into selective trigger-based bypass routing with prequalification, an invariant envelope, shared-dependency checks, and rollback. The remaining claim has measurable comparative outcomes.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A read-only retrospective shadow review of 20 completed requests can measure trigger agreement, alternate-route existence and authority, preservation of assertion and population, shared dependencies, simulated completion time, duplication, and control exceptions without changing evidence, contacting new custodians, or affecting audit conclusions.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No obvious stop applies to the read-only shadow exercise. Live routing would require separate engagement-manager and client data-owner authorization and must halt when access authority, source reliability, completeness, provenance, confidentiality, or auditor control cannot be preserved.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent official requirements and commercial workflow components but no close match among the four retained sources for the complete integrated routing mechanism. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, implementation feasibility, or realized value."}