{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"pareto_frontier_navigation__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["audit planning Pareto frontier complete evidence procedure bundles dominance screening","financial statement audit multi objective optimization audit plan evidence procedures"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"No exact match was found for strict Pareto-dominance screening of complete external-audit evidence bundles followed by an explicitly authorized choice among non-dominated bundles."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["audit program portfolio optimization multi criteria decision analysis","external audit planning goal programming risk cost model","audit evidence planning model combinations audit procedures sufficient appropriate evidence"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["PCAOB AS 2101 audit planning procedures timing resources","ISA 300 planning audit overall strategy audit plan nature timing extent","Auditor-General integrated audit evidence planning methodology"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["audit planning procedure selection evidence sufficiency client burden staff hours optimization","multi objective audit planning risk cost resource allocation sensitivity analysis","tests of controls analytical procedures tests of details compensatory combinations planning"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"AS 2101: Audit Planning","publisher":"Public Company Accounting Oversight Board","url":"https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/as-2101-audit-planning-2022","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["The engagement partner retains primary responsibility for audit planning.","The auditor must develop and document an audit plan covering the nature, timing, and extent of risk-assessment procedures, tests of controls, substantive procedures, and other required procedures.","The overall strategy must consider necessary resources, and the strategy and plan must be modified when circumstances or assessed risks change significantly."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Planning an Audit of Financial Statements - ISA 300","publisher":"International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board","url":"https://www.iaasb.org/consultations-projects/planning-audit-financial-statements-isa-300","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Audit planning is a continual and iterative process involving the engagement partner and other key team members.","Planning includes ethical and independence considerations, an overall strategy, a detailed plan, resource deployment, documentation, and subsequent updating.","ISA 300 does not itself prescribe Pareto-frontier or strict-dominance analysis."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"An audit evidence planning model for the public sector","publisher":"Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences","url":"https://jefjournal.org.za/index.php/jef/article/view/166","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Audit evidence planning involves complex, multidimensional judgments about the types, extent, and combinations of procedures used to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence.","The proposed model represents decision sequences and contingent and compensatory relationships among audit procedures and assurance levels.","The model was incorporated into the Auditor-General of South Africa's methodology, providing first-hand evidence of a structured procedure-combination practice adjacent to the proposal."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"A multi-objective optimization approach for integrated risk-based internal audit planning","publisher":"IDEAS/RePEc","url":"https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v346y2025i2d10.1007_s10479-023-05228-2.html","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Audit planning has been treated as a multi-criteria, resource-constrained decision problem.","The summarized framework combines qualitative and quantitative criteria, risk assessment, activity selection, resource allocation, goal programming, and sensitivity analysis.","Its unit of analysis is an internal-audit annual plan and auditable units, not complete evidence-procedure bundles for a financial-statement assertion."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The sources make multidimensional, resource-sensitive audit-evidence planning visible and report possible inconsistency in evidence quantity and quality when substantial judgment is exercised. They also document structured models for procedure combinations and multi-objective audit planning. They do not directly establish the proposal's stronger empirical premise that external-audit teams commonly retain strictly dominated revenue-cycle bundles because procedures are reviewed piecemeal or inherited.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Integrated audit evidence planning model used by the Auditor-General of South Africa","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Directly addresses a class of transactions, account balance, or disclosure; structures choices among types, extents, and combinations of controls testing, analytical procedures, and tests of details; represents interdependencies and compensatory relationships; and preserves professional judgment.","remaining_difference":"The retained source does not describe enumerating complete alternative bundles, applying strict all-dimension dominance elimination across evidence quality, effort, timing, client burden, and uncertainty, or separating that elimination from an explicit authorized choice among Pareto-efficient bundles."},{"name":"Multi-objective integrated risk-based internal-audit planning framework","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Uses multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria, constraints, resource allocation, staged decision analysis, and sensitivity analysis in audit planning.","remaining_difference":"It concerns selection of auditable units and allocation of resources in an annual internal-audit plan, uses weighted methods, and does not establish strict dominance screening of external-audit evidence bundles."},{"name":"Standards-based iterative audit strategy and plan","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"overlap":"Requires guardrails, partner involvement or responsibility, detailed procedure planning, resource consideration, documentation, and revision when circumstances change.","remaining_difference":"The standards do not prescribe constructing multiple complete bundles, eliminating dominated alternatives, mapping a Pareto frontier, or documenting a priority rule among non-dominated alternatives."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For one external-audit risk area, reviewability improves when complete guardrail-compliant evidence bundles are compared across all material dimensions, only robustly dominated bundles are eliminated, and the engagement partner then explicitly authorizes a value choice among the remaining Pareto-efficient bundles. The retained prior art structures evidence combinations or optimizes audit plans, but does not establish this specific separation between technical elimination and professional value judgment.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified if broader literature, firm methodology, or a product already implements this complete workflow, or if a blinded retrospective test shows that dominance classifications are not reproducible, reverse under small reasonable estimate changes, or disappear after omitted advantages such as evidence reliability, fraud responsiveness, resilience, or reviewability are included.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded screen covered direct terminology, synonyms and older decision-model terminology, standards and implemented methodology, and combinations of evidence-planning and multi-objective subproblems. Exactly four opened sources from four publisher identities were retained, including two official standards and one primary-research article.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The underlying problem of complex, multidimensional, potentially inconsistent evidence-planning judgment is supported, while the claimed prevalence of strictly dominated inherited bundles remains unverified; this meets the partly-supported threshold.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The remaining claim specifies an observable sequence—guardrails, complete-bundle construction, strict dominance screening, authorized choice among non-dominated bundles, and sensitivity-triggered reconsideration—that is distinguishable from standards-based planning, compensatory evidence models, and weighted audit-plan optimization.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A read-only retrospective reconstruction of three to six bundles from one completed, access-approved audit can test inter-reviewer reproducibility, missing dimensions, and sensitivity of dominance classifications without changing workpapers, client requests, conclusions, or the issued opinion.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed shadow test preserves engagement-partner authority, independence and evidence requirements, confidentiality controls, and the original audit record. It includes appropriate stopping conditions for incomparable judgments, missing dimensions, confidentiality failure, or unstable dominance; live automated procedure elimination remains excluded.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This light public-web screen found adjacent standards, an implemented audit-evidence planning model, and multi-objective audit-planning research. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, prevalence of dominated plans, or the absence of undiscovered patents, firm methodologies, commercial tools, research, or non-public practices."}