{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"rate_limiting__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["external audit PBC request process duplicate requests client burden accounting team","audit evidence request backlog client accounting close disruption","token bucket audit evidence requests rate limiting"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":"No direct result described token-bucket or other refill-rate admission control for external-audit evidence requests."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["prepared by client PBC list bottleneck audit client","provided by client list fieldwork delays","audit client assistance document request list"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["audit PBC request management software centralized requests status reminders","PCAOB AS 2101 audit planning engagement partner responsibility","audit request backlog client portal priority"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["audit PBC requests work in progress limit","audit request management prioritization backlog owner due date","audit evidence requests capacity client team backlog","token bucket audit requests evidence"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":"The search found a client-publication gate, internal backlog, priorities, centralized tracking, owners, due dates, and audit trails, but not process-owner-specific weekly refill allowances or reserved capacity."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"How to build a PBC list that doesn't stall fieldwork","publisher":"Fieldguide","url":"https://www.fieldguide.io/resource-articles/how-to-build-pbc-list-that-doesnt-stall-fieldwork","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["PBC workflows consume scarce fieldwork capacity through chasing files, reconciling versions, and handling unusable evidence.","Duplicate requests can arise when multiple associates contact the same person.","Central records, sequencing, status tracking, and early evidence review are established responses."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"PBC Requests","publisher":"AuditDashboard","url":"https://www.auditdashboard.com/pbc-requests","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["A commercial platform centralizes PBC requests, documents, conversations, assignments, due dates, and status.","Its product materials identify email-based inefficiency, miscommunication, duplicate requests, interruptions, manual follow-up, and poor visibility.","The described workflow monitors outstanding work but does not state a capacity-based admission limit."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Request Board","publisher":"Punchcard","url":"https://guide.punchcard.com/auditor/requests-and-workpapers/request-board","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["An audit request can remain in an internal Backlog until an auditor changes its status and publishes it to the client.","Requests have owners, client assignees, due dates, priorities, categories, workflow states, comments, and activity history.","This is close prior art for a pre-admission register and explicit activation boundary, but the documentation states no refill rate, capacity token, owner-group allowance, or protected reservation."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Auditing Standards for Audits of Fiscal Years Beginning on or After December 15, 2024 — AS 2101: Audit Planning","publisher":"Public Company Accounting Oversight Board","url":"https://pcaobus.org/standards/auditing/documents/auditing_standards_audits_fybeginning_on_or_after_december_15_2024.pdf","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["AS 2101 requires proper audit planning and makes the engagement partner responsible for the engagement and its performance.","Planning includes an overall audit strategy and audit plan and continues iteratively through the engagement.","A client-capacity mechanism cannot displace the engagement partner's audit-planning responsibility."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The broader problem is visible: PBC workflows exhibit duplicate requests, interruptions, manual chasing, fragmented status, unusable submissions, version reconciliation, and expenditure of limited team capacity. The retained evidence does not directly demonstrate that bursts above each client process-owner group's completion capacity are a prevalent cause of delay or disruption to close and control work.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Punchcard Request Board backlog-to-publication gate","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Maintains an internal backlog, supplies a discrete gate before client visibility, and attaches priority, ownership, due dates, workflow states, and an activity trail to each request.","remaining_difference":"It does not enforce an admission envelope tied to measured process-owner capacity, weekly refill tokens, a burst allowance, or a separate critical-request reservation."},{"name":"Centralized PBC request-management platforms","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"overlap":"Centralize requests, owners, due dates, evidence, conversations, status, review, and progress while reducing fragmented follow-up and duplicate requests.","remaining_difference":"They provide visibility, sequencing, and workflow management without a stated enforceable limit on how many requests become active during a measurement window."},{"name":"PCAOB AS 2101 audit planning","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Establishes auditor-controlled planning, timing, and continuing adjustment of the audit plan.","remaining_difference":"It neither prescribes request-level admission control nor transfers audit-scope or evidence-sufficiency authority to client personnel."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Compared with a centralized tracker that already supports an internal backlog, publication gate, priorities, owners, and due dates, adding a process-owner-specific weekly refill allowance plus protected critical-request capacity will reduce above-capacity activations without delaying protected evidence, extending projected fieldwork, producing an unmanageable pre-admission backlog, or inducing side-channel requests.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if historical records show no material above-capacity activation bursts, or if a preregistered shadow replay cannot reduce such bursts without delaying deadline-critical or high-risk evidence, extending projected fieldwork, creating excessive unadmitted demand, materially distorting allocation across workstreams, or requiring inconsistent request weights.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct language, PBC and client-assistance terminology, products and practices, an official standard, and combinations involving backlog, priority, capacity, work-in-progress limits, and token buckets. Four opened sources from four publishers were retained.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The sources support the general burden through duplication, interruptions, fragmented tracking, manual follow-up, unusable evidence, and scarce capacity, although the burst-rate causal mechanism is only partly supported.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The closest product already gates publication from an internal backlog, but the proposal adds measurable time-windowed, capacity-linked admission and protected reservations, yielding observable comparative outcomes and falsifiers.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A read-only replay of one completed phase and at most three process-owner groups can compare historical activation patterns with a small preregistered range of refill and burst settings, measuring overload, protected-request delay, backlog, allocation, and projected completion without deployment.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first test is retrospective and read-only. It must not alter audit scope, required evidence, conclusions, deadlines, or communications; AS 2101 leaves planning responsibility with the engagement partner.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This limited public-web screen found close adjacent elements—especially an internal audit-request backlog with a publication gate and priorities—but no retained source combining them with process-owner-specific refill-rate admission and protected capacity. The result cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}