{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"graceful_degradation__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["monthly close disruption provisional close mode subledger outage management reporting","accounting close business continuity provisional management accounts failed feed","month end close staff shortage capacity bottleneck survey controller accounting close","financial reporting business continuity monthly close outage controller"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"No retained source names the complete disruption-triggered provisional-close package; this phrase miss is not treated as evidence of novelty."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["soft close accounting estimates incomplete reconciliations","hard close vs soft close accounting month end","contingency close financial reporting business continuity","AICPA soft close estimates reconciliations monthly close"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["Oracle Financials period close status incomplete reconciliation close monitor","financial close management exception tasks incomplete close software first party","official accounting business continuity plan financial reporting system outage manual workaround","risk based balance sheet reconciliation frequency materiality official guidance"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["materiality risk based account reconciliation policy close","provisional management accounts uncertainty estimate internal use","subledger unavailable general ledger close fallback roll forward","close process disruption staff unavailable accounting business continuity plan"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"The components are individually well represented, but the retained sources do not document their complete combination as a temporary close-specific operating mode."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"How organizations can streamline the month-end close","publisher":"Journal of Accountancy / AICPA & CIMA","url":"https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2018/mar/streamline-month-end-close/","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["Month-end close creates substantial time pressure and stress.","Close delays are associated with incompatible systems, difficulty obtaining information, and understaffing.","Using estimates can accelerate close, but excessive emphasis on speed can compromise integrity.","Documented procedures, adaptable sequencing, key-account reconciliation, and cross-training are recognized mitigations."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Closing Cycle Best Practices","publisher":"American Institute of Certified Public Accountants","url":"https://blog.prolecto.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/aicpa-best-practices-in-close-processes-2014-20170129.pdf","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["A soft close is an abbreviated monthly close that can eliminate, defer, or estimate accruals, allocations, reconciliations, contingencies, reserves, and immaterial entries.","Soft-close design can prioritize key performance information and distinguish initial or flash results from final close results.","Feeder availability, feeder errors, procedure adherence, adjustments, report reliability, materiality, responsibilities, and close calendars are recognized control and performance considerations.","This is the closest located accounting-specific precedent for deliberately reducing monthly-close scope."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"How to Prevent a General Ledger Period from Closing When Open Subledger Periods Exist","publisher":"Oracle","url":"https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/financials/26b/faugl/how-to-prevent-a-general-ledger-period-from-closing-when-open.html","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["A general-ledger close can be blocked when selected subledgers remain open or transactions and entries are incomplete.","Oracle permits policy-configured exclusion of certain subledgers from a period-status check while continuing to enforce transaction exceptions.","Pending intercompany transactions remain a non-excludable close blocker in the described product.","Existing products therefore support differentiated close checks and exception visibility, but the source does not describe a provisional management package or disruption-triggered recovery mode."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"High-level principles for business continuity","publisher":"Bank for International Settlements, Joint Forum","url":"https://www.bis.org/publ/joint14.pdf","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Business-continuity management identifies critical operations, dependencies, resilience levels, recovery priorities, and target service levels under disruption.","Continuity plans should define invocation triggers, decision authority, responsibilities, communications, testing, and eventual restoration of normal operations.","When full recovery resources are limited, critical functions should be recovered on a priority basis.","Staff unavailability is an explicit continuity-planning scenario, and independent review or audit of continuity arrangements is recommended."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The problem is visible at a coarse level: professional evidence describes close pressure, understaffing, incompatible systems, unavailable information, accuracy risks from speed, and the need to preserve key controls. Product documentation confirms that open subledgers and incomplete transactions create concrete close exceptions. The retained sources do not quantify the frequency of the proposal's exact days-before-deadline disruption scenario.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"AICPA soft-close practice","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Deliberately abbreviates monthly close, uses estimates, raises materiality thresholds, defers or eliminates reconciliations and allocations, monitors feeder readiness, and distinguishes early from final results.","remaining_difference":"It is presented mainly as a recurring close redesign, not an exceptional mode entered at an observable disruption threshold with explicit provisional watermarking, usage restrictions, an exception register, protected accounting invariants, and mandatory restoration."},{"name":"Business-continuity recovery planning","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Defines critical operations, priority recovery, reduced service targets, invocation triggers, authority, communication, testing, staff-loss scenarios, and restoration.","remaining_difference":"It is generic financial-sector continuity guidance rather than a close-specific design specifying protected balances, deferred accounting procedures, provisional management reporting, and ledger-control invariants."},{"name":"Configurable strict period-close controls","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Distinguishes subledger-status exceptions, allows configured exclusions, preserves non-excludable transaction checks, and exposes conditions preventing ledger closure.","remaining_difference":"It controls whether a ledger period can close; it does not allocate scarce staff capacity, produce a bounded provisional management package, quantify uncertainty, or prescribe restoration of deferred work."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Compared with an ordinary soft close or generic continuity plan, a preapproved, disruption-threshold-triggered close mode can temporarily disable named low-priority procedures and produce a clearly restricted provisional management package while preserving predefined ledger, authorization, traceability, protected-account, and restoration invariants with less constrained staff effort than attempting the full close.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if a direct prior practice already combines the stated disruption trigger, protected accounting core, explicit provisional signaling, exception register, usage restriction, and mandatory restoration, or if the proposed masked-feed and staff-cap replay fails any invariant, exceeds its uncertainty floor, or uses no less constrained effort than the full-close workflow.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct descriptions, soft-close and continuity terminology, product controls, professional practices, and component combinations. Exactly four opened sources from three publishers were retained, including first-party and official guidance.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Professional and product sources directly support close pressure, capacity and system obstacles, speed-versus-integrity risk, and blocking subledger or transaction exceptions.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Soft close and continuity planning establish neighboring components, but the disruption-triggered, explicitly provisional, close-specific combination remains distinguishable and has observable effort, integrity, coverage, labeling, uncertainty, and restoration outcomes.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A read-only replay of one completed close with one masked subledger and a fixed staff-hour ceiling is bounded and can compare provisional results, uncertainty, effort, exceptions, controls, and restoration steps against the known completed close. Periodic continuity testing is consistent with official guidance.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first test is nonproduction and read-only, preserves journal and evidence controls, prohibits external issuance, and assigns activation and distribution to existing controller/CFO authority. Oracle's non-excludable exceptions illustrate why the test must halt rather than override mandatory close controls. Live use would still require entity-specific policy, legal, covenant, tax, audit, and regulatory review.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent soft-close, continuity-planning, and configurable close-control practices but no retained source documenting the complete combination. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, prevalence, realized value, or freedom to operate."}