{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"objective_weighting_governance__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["internal audit finding remediation prioritization risk scoring overdue findings follow-up","audit issue management priority score weighting remediation findings","internal audit recommendations follow-up risk priority standard audit committee","audit remediation weighted score sensitivity analysis audit trail"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":"No retained source described the complete proposed combination for scheduling an overdue-finding follow-up queue."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["monitoring progress corrective action priority matrix weighted","standard operating procedure audit finding tracking priority point factor matrix","internal audit finding rating methodology override criteria severe regulatory deadline","environmental audit finding tracking system setting priorities point factors"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["AuditBoard issues overdue remediation risk rating prioritization follow-up","TeamMate audit issue tracking overdue findings priority risk score","internal audit recommendations follow-up risk priority standard audit committee","site:theiia.org \"Standard 15.2\" \"Confirming the Implementation\""],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["multi criteria decision analysis audit findings prioritization sensitivity weights","primary research multi criteria decision analysis weight sensitivity ranking stability report","audit finding prioritization multi criteria weighted scoring remediation AHP","audit remediation weighted score sensitivity analysis audit trail"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"Weight-robustness methods were found, but not their complete combination with protected audit-finding escalations, committee-authorized weights, and a versioned change trail."}},"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.pdf","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Standard 15.2 requires an established methodology for confirming implementation, risk-based follow-up assessments, status updates in a tracking system, and follow-up effort that considers finding significance.","The implementation guidance explicitly recognizes spreadsheets or software for tracking open and past-due action plans and communicating with the board and senior management.","Standard 14.3 requires prioritizing each finding by significance under methodologies established by the chief audit executive, while related standards require reproducible documentation and approval of audit work."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Environmental Audit Program Design Guidelines for Federal Agencies","publisher":"United States Environmental Protection Agency","url":"https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100YHKH.TXT","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["The guidance says finding priority can be assigned through a decision tree or a matrix with point factors and should be consistent, address management interests, and document the designation.","It states that auditors and line management should define the basis for priorities and identifies authority establishing a requirement as a prioritization consideration.","It recommends tracking finding priority, remediation cost, milestones, and status under a standardized procedure defining who confirms additions or deletions, reviews missed milestones, and changes records.","It documents staffing constraints that can make it impossible to audit as frequently as needed, making prioritization operationally relevant."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Should You Rate Audit Reports?","publisher":"Optro (formerly AuditBoard)","url":"https://optro.ai/blog/should-you-rate-audit-reports","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["The practitioner account identifies subjectivity and information loss when mixed audit results are collapsed into one overall rating.","It describes rating individual observations using a documented framework covering likelihood, impact, vulnerability, and velocity.","It reports using clear definitions and dialogue with process owners to make the rating rationale more inspectable and collaborative.","The practice prioritizes higher-risk observations for attention but does not describe governed weights, sensitivity sweeps, or overdue-queue allocation."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"On the Monte Carlo weights in multiple criteria decision analysis","publisher":"PLOS ONE","url":"https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0268950","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["The study states that criteria weights are difficult to set precisely and that small weight changes can produce substantially different alternative rankings.","It evaluates many feasible weight vectors, identifies which alternatives rank first under them, and measures ranking stability through the minimum weight change needed to replace the top alternative.","It demonstrates that a systematic weight sweep can expose how uncertain value judgments influence rankings and give decision-makers robustness information."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The component problem is visible: authoritative and historical guidance recognizes scarce audit capacity, past-due action tracking, risk-based follow-up, point-factor priority matrices, management-influenced priority criteria, and controlled tracking procedures; practitioner evidence also identifies subjectivity and obscuration from aggregate audit ratings. Primary research independently establishes that plausible weight changes can alter rankings. The exact conjunction—an internal-audit team using opaque spreadsheet weights to select an overdue-finding follow-up queue—was not directly documented in the retained sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"EPA point-factor audit-finding priority and tracking procedure","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Uses decision trees or point-factor matrices to prioritize audit findings, requires auditors and management to define the basis, records priority and remediation resources, and governs tracking-system changes through a standard procedure.","remaining_difference":"It does not specify explicit multi-objective weights, non-compensatory fraud or deadline thresholds, alternative-weight sweeps, finding-level rank-stability reporting, or audit-committee authorization of weight changes."},{"name":"IIA risk-based follow-up methodology and past-due action tracking","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Requires established, documented, risk-based follow-up that accounts for finding significance, tracks past-due actions, and communicates with senior management and the board.","remaining_difference":"It leaves the prioritization methodology to the chief audit executive and does not require governed composite weights, protected obligations, sensitivity analysis, or queue-entry impact traces."},{"name":"Documented, collaborative individual-observation rating framework","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Uses defined criteria for individual findings, exposes rating reasoning to process owners, and avoids an aggregate score that can obscure significant issues.","remaining_difference":"It addresses report ratings rather than allocation of limited overdue-remediation follow-up capacity and lacks explicit weights, protected escalations, sensitivity reports, and controlled revisions."},{"name":"Monte Carlo weight-robustness analysis for multicriteria rankings","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Sweeps feasible weights, observes ranking changes, and quantifies how stable a preferred alternative is to weight variation.","remaining_difference":"It is a generic decision-analysis method with no internal-audit authority model, protected regulatory or fraud thresholds, finding-level governance response, or score-use restriction."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a fixed overdue-finding register and follow-up capacity, combining pre-score protected escalations with authorized objective weights, predeclared alternative-weight sweeps, finding-level queue-entry and rank-reversal disclosure, bounded score use, and a versioned authorization record will make scheduling tradeoffs and fragile cases more reproducible and challengeable than established risk-based tracking, point-factor matrices, or documented finding ratings alone.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if a current prior practice is found that already implements this complete bundle, or if a blinded shadow comparison shows that the governed artifacts do not improve reviewer agreement, traceability of disagreements, or identification of weight-fragile queue decisions relative to the baseline. It is also weakened if plausible weights produce no material queue changes or protected cases cannot be classified consistently.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Four search lanes covered direct terminology, historical terminology, products and standards, and component combinations. Exactly four opened direct sources span four publishers and include an official professional standard, federal guidance, a professional practice account, and primary research.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The precise organizational scenario is not directly observed, but the sources jointly support the operative components: constrained audit capacity, past-due tracking, risk-based or point-factor prioritization, rating subjectivity, and weight-sensitive rankings.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No retained source combines the adjacent practices into the proposed governed overdue-queue procedure. Its remaining claim is falsifiable through queue changes, rank reversals, reviewer agreement, and traceability measures.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A read-only test on at most 30 frozen findings, one fixed capacity, the candidate weights plus six predeclared alternatives, and four authorized reviewers is bounded and can compare queue stability, escalation agreement, and rationale traceability without changing operations.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first step preserves audit-committee authority, is confined to a historical snapshot, prohibits live queue or finding-status changes, protects mandatory escalations, restricts confidential data, and supplies explicit halt and rollback conditions. No retained source identifies an inherent prohibition on such shadow analysis.","source_ids":["SRC1"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen supports only a coarse adjacent-prior-art determination. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}