{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"formal_derivation_system_design__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["intercompany elimination audit trail rule based derivation consolidation software","proof carrying accounting intercompany elimination formal rules","formal logic intercompany elimination accounting derivation proof rules"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["consolidation elimination rules engine journal provenance explainability","intercompany reconciliation matching elimination workflow audit trail","accounting rules inference engine provenance derivation trace financial reporting"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["Oracle Financial Consolidation intercompany eliminations audit trail","SAP S/4HANA Group Reporting intercompany elimination rules","IFRS 10 intercompany balances transactions eliminated in full"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["business rules engine accounting journal derivation trace versioning","explainable rule engine financial consolidation proof trace non derivable","formal verification accounting rules journal entries proof checker","explainable rules engine consolidation elimination entry rule trace version"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Managing the complexities of intercompany tax operations","publisher":"Deloitte","url":"https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/programs/center-for-controllership/blogs/managing-intercompany-accounting-challenges-and-tax-complexities.html","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["Organizations face intercompany process gaps, silos, manual workarounds, inconsistent documentation, unclear transaction components, and inconsistent reconciliation.","These conditions can increase audit scrutiny, operational inefficiency, and misstatement or compliance risk.","Deloitte identifies standardized processes, governance, automation, and improved auditability as leading practices."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Equity Method—Towards an Exposure Draft: Project scope (Agenda Paper 13D)","publisher":"IFRS Foundation","url":"https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/meetings/2023/september/iasb/ap13d-project-scope.pdf","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["The IFRS Foundation staff paper states that intragroup balances, transactions, income, and expenses are eliminated in full.","The paper identifies IFRS 10 paragraph B86(c) as the relevant consolidation-procedure requirement.","The authoritative obligation to eliminate is distinct from the proposed computational mechanism for deriving individual entries."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Oracle Financial Consolidation Hub User's Guide","publisher":"Oracle","url":"https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B25516_20/current/acrobat/115gcsug.pdf","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["Oracle documents intercompany rules that identify activity to match and eliminate and specify line items, suspense accounts, and tolerances.","The product creates elimination entries when documented entity, counterparty, hierarchy, and enabled-rule conditions are met.","It checks balancing, provides validation without write-back, and reports eliminations broken out by intercompany rule.","The reviewed documentation does not disclose a formal proof object with separately typed premise classes, a mechanical proof checker, explicit non-derivability, and a named rule-system version for every entry."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"ProofLedger — Mathematically Proven Accounting Compliance","publisher":"ProofLedger","url":"https://proofledger.space/","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["ProofLedger markets Lean 4 formal predicates and kernel type-checking for accounting-standard compliance claims.","It markets independently verifiable signed proof certificates for audit workpapers.","The reviewed page addresses formal verification of accounting claims but does not describe intercompany matching or generation of consolidation-elimination entries."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The operational problem is visible at a coarse level: Deloitte reports manual workarounds, inconsistent documentation, unclear transaction components, reconciliation difficulties, audit scrutiny, and inefficiency in intercompany operations. Oracle's extensive matching, rule, suspense, balancing, and reporting machinery further shows that deriving eliminations from heterogeneous records is a real system-design concern. The retained sources do not directly measure how often correctly matched transaction pairs receive inconsistent elimination treatments because their premises or reasoning rules remain implicit.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Oracle Financial Consolidation Hub intercompany rules and matching reports","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Rule-driven matching and elimination, explicit eligibility conditions, balancing and suspense handling, validation mode, generated entries, and reports associating eliminations with intercompany rules substantially overlap the automation, guardrail, and traceability layers.","remaining_difference":"The reviewed guide does not show that every entry carries a mechanically checkable proof over separately declared ledger facts, policy assumptions, and external judgments under a named kernel version, nor that unsupported cases receive an explicit non-derivable result."},{"name":"ProofLedger formal accounting verification","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Formalized accounting predicates, proof-kernel checking, and independently verifiable proof certificates closely overlap the proposed formal-calculus, checker, and proof-carrying-output mechanisms.","remaining_difference":"The reviewed offering verifies accounting-compliance claims rather than normalizing paired intercompany records and deriving consolidation-elimination obligations and balanced entries with explicit external-judgment routing."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For intercompany elimination specifically, every proposed entry can be emitted with a machine-checkable derivation from separately typed accepted facts, policy assumptions, and authorized external judgments through named rules under a named kernel version, while malformed, contradictory, or interpretation-dependent cases return explicit non-derivable or routed statuses. The retained sources show rule-based elimination and formal accounting proofs separately, but not this complete combination.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if product documentation, an implementation demonstration, or the bounded replay shows that an existing consolidation system already supplies per-entry machine-checkable derivations with typed premise separation, named rules and system version, mechanical verification, and explicit non-derivable or external-judgment routing—or if the proposed kernel cannot do so without encoding case-specific conclusions as rules.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The screen covered direct phrasing, older and synonymous terms, standards and commercial practices, and combinations involving rule engines, provenance, formal verification, and proof checking. Four opened sources span four publishers and include official and first-party material.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The problem is partly supported by professional evidence of manual workarounds, inconsistent documentation, unclear data, reconciliation difficulty, audit scrutiny, and inefficiency, together with first-party documentation showing the complexity of operational elimination rules and balancing.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The remaining claim is narrower than automation or matching and can be tested by inspecting whether each output has a checkable typed derivation, named rules and version, and an explicit failure or routing status. Oracle and ProofLedger establish adjacent components without eliminating this contrast in the reviewed material.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A read-only replay of at most 30 historical inventory transactions, limited to one period and entity pair with at most ten rules and predefined derivation/non-derivation exemplars, is bounded and can directly test the remaining contrast without posting entries.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No obvious stop applies to the proposed read-only shadow test if outputs cannot post, qualified accountants retain approval and interpretation authority, sensitive records remain access-controlled, and the kernel is not treated as evidence that source facts are true or that all reporting requirements are satisfied.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen establishes only coarse researchability and an adjacent-prior-art disposition. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}