{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp12_substrate_denial72_20260805","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp12_light_screen_20260805","cell_id":"authority_legitimacy_and_consent_foundations__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["accounts payable anomaly fraud invoice payment hold authority review appeal expiration","invoice hold policy accounts payable authorized release hold reason duration escalation","payment hold accounts payable policy review release authority"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["payment suspension disputed invoice notice reasons payment withheld supplier appeal","invoice approvals hold codes release names","vendor hold invoice exception workflow"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":"No retained source described the entire anomaly-triggered mandate-and-appeal combination under older terminology."},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["Oracle Payables invoice holds release workflow approver official","SAP payment block invoice reason release authorization official","internal control accounts payable payment holds authorization segregation duties documentation standard"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["audit report accounts payable invoice holds unresolved aging unauthorized payment hold","invoice approval permissions audit authorized staff accounts payable quarterly review","accounts payable authorization documentation hold aging independent review"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"The components are established separately, but no retained source joined anomaly-advisory status, a controller mandate, automatic expiry, protected reasons, affected-party voice, and independent outcome-changing review."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Oracle Payables User's Guide","publisher":"Oracle","url":"https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26401_01/doc.122/e48760/T295436T366808.htm","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["Oracle Payables supports automatic, manual, scheduled-payment, and supplier-site invoice holds.","The system records current and released holds, offers alerts and workflow, and supports named hold and release reasons.","Manually applied holds require manual release and do not automatically expire.","Certain holds may be manually released without correcting the underlying matching error, illustrating the distinction between system capability and governed authority."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Managing Invoice Holds","publisher":"Stanford University Financial Management Services","url":"https://fingate.stanford.edu/purchasing-contracts/resource/managing-invoice-holds","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["An operating accounts-payable practice uses enumerated hold reasons and action instructions.","Some holds are expected to be resolved by Accounts Payable or another department within two to fifteen business days.","Departments are instructed to contact a support center when specified hold-age thresholds are exceeded, providing a practical escalation route."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Internal Audit of Accounts Payable","publisher":"Brevard County, Florida","url":"https://www.brevardfl.gov/docs/default-source/commissioners/2023-internal-audit-reports-not-508/internal-audit-of-accounts-payable-function.pdf?sfvrsn=4dd82007_6","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A random audit sample of 50 invoices found seven late submissions and one invoice not paid within the required period.","One invoice's approval signature did not match the authorized-signature form, and written evidence of the subsequent authorization verification was unavailable.","The audit found that a required quarterly distribution of authorized-approver listings had not occurred and recommended restoring that control.","The audit directly tested authorization, documentation, timeliness, role responsibilities, and audit-trail sufficiency in accounts payable."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Internal Control Standard #1—Payments Cycle","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Division of Finance","url":"https://www.finance.upenn.edu/policy/2701-1-addendum-internal-control-standard-1-payments-cycle/","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["The payments-cycle standard requires transactions to be executed under appropriate authorization.","It requires invoices to be checked and approved against price, quantity, amount, receipt, and payment terms.","It requires valid documentation and accurate recording of payment-cycle liabilities and disbursements."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The observable ingredients are visible: ERP systems permit consequential manual and automatic holds, manually applied holds may persist until manually released, operating guidance anticipates multi-day holds and escalation, and an accounts-payable audit found localized timeliness and authorization-evidence failures. The retained evidence does not directly establish the proposed setting's narrower prevalence claim—anomaly-triggered, ownerless holds whose jurisdiction is contested or resolved through seniority—so support is partial rather than complete.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Oracle Payables invoice-hold, release, alert, workflow, and audit-trail controls","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Supports automatic and human-applied holds, defined hold and release reasons, alerts, approver routing, release actions, and a history of current and released holds.","remaining_difference":"The documentation does not supply a controller-approved, anomaly-specific mandate with advisory-only model status, mandatory expiry and bounded renewals, affected-party challenge, conflict recusal, or an independent reviewer empowered to narrow or release every contested hold."},{"name":"Stanford Managing Invoice Holds practice","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Uses recognizable hold reasons, expected resolution windows, departmental instructions, and escalation after age thresholds.","remaining_difference":"It is operational resolution guidance rather than a legitimacy charter; it does not distinguish detection expertise from hold authority or provide protected reasons, independent outcome-changing review, consent rules, or formal jurisdiction limits."},{"name":"Conventional accounts-payable authorization, documentation, and audit controls","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"overlap":"Requires authorized decision-makers, approval evidence, current authorization records, transaction documentation, timeliness, and auditability; the audit demonstrates that these controls can lapse in practice.","remaining_difference":"These controls govern invoice approval generally, not the specific authority to impose, extend, challenge, and release anomaly-triggered nonpayment. They do not assemble expiry, renewal limits, affected-party voice, protected reason-giving, and independent correction into one hold mandate."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For technically defensible anomaly flags that still generate authority-friction indicators, a controller-approved human hold mandate combining scoped jurisdiction, mandatory expiry, protected reasons, and independent outcome-changing review will make hold ownership, duration, and correction more determinate than ordinary ERP hold/release workflow, aging escalation, or general invoice-authorization controls alone.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if sampled cases already have an operative policy and configured workflow containing the same bounded decision right, expiry and renewal rules, protected reason record, affected-party evidence route, conflict guard, and independent power to change outcomes; or if blinded tabletop use of the draft fails to reduce predeclared authority-friction disagreements, cannot support meaningful challenge without unsafe disclosure, or merely adds delay without changing authority relationships.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct language, older and synonymous terms, ERP products, institutional practices, an internal-control standard, an accounts-payable audit, and combinations of authorization, documentation, aging, escalation, and review. Exactly four opened sources from four publishers were retained, including first-party, official, and primary material.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The problem is partly supported: consequential holds, persistence until manual release, multi-day resolution paths, payment delay, and authorization-evidence lapses are directly visible, although anomaly-specific ownerlessness and seniority-based dispute resolution remain unverified.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The remaining claim is contrastive and measurable against adjacent controls: it predicts fewer unknown owners, jurisdiction disputes, uncited mandates, expired holds, private escalations, and unavailable outcome-changing reviews after applying the combined mandate.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A controller- and data-owner-approved review of no more than 30 closed cases plus a six-case de-identified tabletop is bounded, read-only, and can compare predeclared authority-friction indicators with existing hold histories, dates, reasons, release records, and authorization evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first test grants no payment authority, changes no live invoice or accounting record, uses existing access under controller and data-owner approval, and includes explicit halting conditions for protected information, conflicts, or live-payment influence. No retained source reveals a categorical safety or authority prohibition; applicable entity policy and confidentiality requirements still govern execution.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent prior art but no retained source implementing the full combination. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unindexed internal policies, configurations, patents, products, and practices may contain closer matches."}