{"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__chemistry_materials","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["battery electrolyte formulation selection weighted scoring safety cost environmental supply risk pilot scale","electrolyte formulation ranking weight sensitivity safety threshold governance","battery electrolyte materials ranked prioritized go/no-go scale-up"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"No exact electrolyte-specific implementation of the complete proposed governance sequence was found; the closest results separately covered battery-material MCDA, electrolyte tradeoffs, and pilot-scale qualification."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["battery materials selection MCDM MADM MODM stakeholder weighting sensitivity","battery material PROMETHEE outranking non-compensatory threshold","multi-attribute utility battery material selection ranking stability"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["official MCDA guidance stakeholder weights sensitivity minimum criteria reviewer","DOE solid electrolyte pilot manufacturing specifications safety cost performance","lithium ion manufacturing quality control electrolyte safety testing"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["stakeholder weight elicitation minimum eligibility criteria contribution chart ranking sensitivity documentation","emerging battery materials MCDA thresholds compensation stakeholder sensitivity report","electrolyte pilot scale go no-go safety process compatibility performance cost"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Sustainability Assessment for Emerging Batteries","publisher":"Springer Nature","url":"https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2_18","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Emerging-battery and battery-material selection already uses MCDA with stakeholder identification, criteria definition, weighting, ranking, and sensitivity or robustness analysis.","The source expressly distinguishes compensatory from low-compensatory methods and identifies threshold values as relevant when poor performance should not be offset by strengths elsewhere.","Its battery cathode-material example varies weight sets and reports resulting rankings.","The described MCDA software can document inputs, methods, parameters, results, stability estimates, and uncertainties, while the assessment process is characterized as iterative as information, priorities, and stakeholders change."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Water containing battery electrolyte could enable cheaper, easier to produce batteries","publisher":"Argonne Leadership Computing Facility","url":"https://www.alcf.anl.gov/news/water-containing-battery-electrolyte-could-enable-cheaper-easier-produce-batteries","source_type":"OTHER","claims_supported":["Electrolyte formulation affects electrochemical performance and compatibility with manufacturing conditions.","A proposed formulation was evaluated through simulations, experiments, and cell fabrication because ordinary water contamination degrades performance and creates corrosive byproducts.","The formulation could reduce fabrication cost and environmental burden by relaxing extremely dry manufacturing requirements, making process, performance, cost, and environmental tradeoffs visible."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"An Introductory Guide to Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)","publisher":"UK Government Analysis Function","url":"https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/an-introductory-guide-to-mcda/","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Compensatory MCDA permits strengths on some criteria to offset weaknesses on others; the guide recommends absolute minima or non-compensatory methods when such substitution is inappropriate.","The guide assigns roles to a decision commissioner, practitioner, stakeholders, and an independent reviewer, and says criteria weights must be validly elicited from decision stakeholders.","It recommends performance matrices, visualization of each criterion's contribution, sensitivity analysis over weights and other uncertain inputs, and documentation focused on effects on option rankings.","It treats MCDA as decision support rather than complete decision authority and calls for commissioner and reviewer support for the analysis plan."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Manufacturing of Protected Lithium Electrodes for Advanced Lithium-Air, Lithium-Water, and Lithium-Sulfur Batteries","publisher":"U.S. Department of Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office","url":"https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/downloads/manufacturing-protected-lithium-electrodes-advanced-batteries","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["DOE identifies manufacturability, process efficiency, scale-up, safety, cost, performance, mechanical strength, ionic conductivity, and chemical stability as linked considerations for advanced electrolyte technology.","The documented project moved electrolyte-related technology from bench to pilot scale using specifications, testing, process adjustment, milestones, and a pilot production line.","The source supports the existence of consequential, specification-driven pilot-scale gates but does not describe governed weights or ranking-sensitivity approval."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The problem's mechanism is visible. Official MCDA guidance confirms that compensatory scores can hide unacceptable weakness, that outputs are weight-sensitive, and that stakeholders, review, minima, sensitivity analysis, contribution displays, and documentation matter. Battery-specific literature already applies these mechanisms to emerging material rankings, while electrolyte and pilot-scale sources demonstrate real performance, process, safety, environmental, and cost tensions. The bounded sources do not establish how frequently battery programs actually use undocumented coefficients, lack accountable approval, or permit EHS failures to be compensated; that narrower prevalence claim remains unsupported.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Emerging-battery sustainability MCDA and MCDA KIT workflow","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Battery-material alternatives are structured by criteria, stakeholders, weights, aggregation, compensation choices, thresholds, rank-sensitivity analysis, documented inputs and outputs, stability estimates, and iterative updating. This covers most analytical mechanisms in the proposal.","remaining_difference":"The demonstrated case screens cathode materials for sustainability rather than electrolyte formulations for pilot manufacture; it does not assign binding EHS and pilot-process veto authority, require signed pre-operative approval, or maintain the proposed author-and-effective-date audit record."},{"name":"UK Government Analysis Function MCDA governance guidance","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Defines decision ownership and review roles, stakeholder weight elicitation, criteria scales, performance matrices, minimum eligibility screening, component-contribution visualization, sensitivity analysis, ranking-impact documentation, and the limitation that the model supports rather than replaces decision authority.","remaining_difference":"It is domain-general and does not prescribe electrolyte tests, battery pilot-process thresholds, an EHS signatory, or the proposal's particular revision triggers."},{"name":"DOE protected-lithium-electrode pilot-scale manufacturing practice","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Uses specifications, testing, milestones, process adjustment, and pilot-scale demonstration while jointly confronting performance, manufacturability, safety, stability, and cost.","remaining_difference":"It does not disclose a weighted candidate-ranking model, stakeholder weight sets, contribution traces, ranking-stability escalation, or an approval audit trail."},{"name":"Argonne water-tolerant electrolyte development","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Shows that electrolyte choice connects laboratory performance, corrosive failure mechanisms, fabrication compatibility, cost, and environmental burden, and that cell-level validation is required.","remaining_difference":"It evaluates one formulation pathway scientifically rather than governing a multi-candidate pilot-selection rule."}],"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","contrastive_claim_remaining":"The remaining narrower claim is that, for electrolyte pilot selection specifically, named EHS and pilot-line authorities can impose non-waivable eligibility floors while a separately authorized program owner approves compensatory weights, and that rank reversals across accountable functions' weight sets formally trigger deliberation or additional evidence, with signed, dated, revision-controlled records. The component mechanisms and most of their governance structure are already disclosed; only this battery-electrolyte-specific authority and audit arrangement remains distinct in the retained set.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim would be falsified by a pre-existing battery or electrolyte operating procedure, software deployment, project record, or publication that combines named weight-setting authority, non-compensatory EHS and pilot-process criteria, candidate-level contribution traces, stakeholder-weight rank-sensitivity reporting, approval or escalation tied to instability, and dated revision records. It would also fail empirically if the bounded dossiers contain no compensatory multi-objective selection or already contain that full sequence.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct electrolyte and pilot-scale terminology, historical MCDA/MCDM/MADM/MODM and outranking terminology, official governance and manufacturing practices, and combinations involving thresholds, stakeholder weights, contribution traces, sensitivity, and documentation. Exactly four opened sources from four publishers were retained, including two official sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The problem is partly supported: compensatory failure modes, weight sensitivity, battery-material multi-objective ranking, and electrolyte scale-up tradeoffs are documented, although the prevalence of undocumented coefficients and unauthorized EHS compensation in actual programs is not.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A narrow falsifiable contrast remains around electrolyte-specific division of EHS, manufacturing, and program authority; instability-triggered approval; and dated revision control, even though most analytical mechanisms substantially collide with prior art.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A two-week, shadow-only reconstruction of no more than eight completed dossiers is bounded and can count rank reversals, threshold conflicts, missing proxy rationales, and authority disputes without changing an operational decision. It directly tests whether the proposed governance adds information beyond established MCDA and specification practices.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The retrospective test uses existing records, does not synthesize chemicals or authorize pilot work, preserves historical decisions, and stops for confidentiality, incomparability, proxy, or authority disputes. Retained safety and pilot-scale sources reinforce the need to preserve testing and manufacturing controls; none identifies a prohibition on a controlled shadow review.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":false,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, operational feasibility, effect size, or realized value. It found substantial prior disclosure of the proposal's central analytical and governance architecture in general official MCDA guidance and emerging-battery-material assessment, plus adjacent electrolyte and pilot-scale practices. It did not establish whether the narrower electrolyte-specific authority and audit arrangement exists elsewhere."}