{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp12_substrate_denial72_20260805","cell_id":"incentive_compatible_rule_design__accounting_auditing","arm":"CONSTRAINED_HIGH","candidate_id":"incentive_compatible_rule_design__accounting_auditing__CONSTRAINED_HIGH","decision":"PROPOSAL","abstention_reason":null,"proposal":{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp12_substrate_denial72_20260805","cell_id":"incentive_compatible_rule_design__accounting_auditing","arm":"CONSTRAINED_HIGH","candidate_id":"incentive_compatible_rule_design__accounting_auditing__CONSTRAINED_HIGH","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Mechanical Twin-Tab Inventory Issue Gate","problem":"In a manual storeroom, a custodian can remove a high-value part from an open bin while omitting or altering the corresponding issue slip. Because possession of the part is not physically coupled to creation of a source record, omission is easier for the remover than truthful recording, and a later count cannot reliably distinguish an undocumented issue from loss, breakage, or counting error.","actors":["Storeroom custodian choosing whether to document a withdrawal","Employee or technician receiving the issued part","Inventory accountant reconciling quantities and source documents","Auditor testing the completeness assertion","Single-exit rack, mechanical escapement, frangible twin tabs, retained-tab cassette, and stored parts"],"observable_state":"A part has left its assigned rack, but the issue-file population contains no contemporaneous, uniquely matched physical witness; alternatively, the rack enclosure or its numbered seal shows forced-entry evidence.","consequence":"Undocumented issues can create unexplained book-to-physical differences, misallocate inventory expense, and weaken audit evidence for the completeness of recorded inventory movements.","affected_objective":"Completeness and traceability of inventory issue records, supporting accurate inventory balances and expense attribution.","intervention":"Place each bounded class of high-value parts in a sealed, single-exit gravity rack fitted with a purely mechanical escapement. Each part position carries a unique, pre-numbered frangible twin tab. Pulling the tab through the intended port performs one coupled action: it releases exactly one part, leaves one matching tab half attached to that part, and drops the other half into a locked transparent cassette. The normal access path therefore cannot yield a part without simultaneously creating a durable, uniquely matched physical witness. Removing a part without that witness requires visibly breaching the rack or its numbered enclosure seal. No sensor, software, network, algorithm, or automated decision is used.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Strategic participants with private action","domain_realization":"The custodian privately chooses whether and how to remove a part; the accountant and auditor observe records and later quantities rather than the withdrawal itself."},{"archetype_element":"Exploitable current rule","domain_realization":"An open bin plus separate paper issue slip lets the custodian obtain the part first and omit, delay, or alter the record afterward."},{"archetype_element":"Desired outcome specification","domain_realization":"Every withdrawal through the authorized physical path produces one unique contemporaneous source witness for exactly one released part."},{"archetype_element":"Action and choice set redesign","domain_realization":"The device physically bundles ordinary withdrawal with witness creation, leaving visible enclosure breach as the distinct alternative to recorded withdrawal."},{"archetype_element":"Incentive payoff map","domain_realization":"Using the intended port is the low-effort, nondestructive path; concealment requires extra physical work and produces observable damage or a seal discontinuity."},{"archetype_element":"Information structure and verification","domain_realization":"The matching tab halves reveal the existence and identity of an issue without relying on the custodian's later recollection or self-authored slip."},{"archetype_element":"Truthfulness condition","domain_realization":"For every withdrawal through the designed port, the material state itself truthfully records that a particular part left; a user cannot obtain that part through the port while selecting a false no-issue state."},{"archetype_element":"Strategic response test","domain_realization":"Adversarial users attempt tab swapping, double release, release without tab capture, tab creation without release, and nondamaging access around the escapement."},{"archetype_element":"Participation and fairness constraint","domain_realization":"The release force, reach, labeling, and cycle time must permit legitimate users with differing strength or dexterity to obtain parts without unsafe workarounds."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"mechanism_design_protocol","role":"Maps actors, hidden actions, physical choices, effort costs, observable evidence, and bypass paths before fixing the escapement geometry.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this mapping, a rack could generate tokens yet leave a low-effort side opening or replenishment path that preserves the profitable omission strategy."},{"mechanism_slug":"anti_gaming_rule_design","role":"Closes the specific path by which a remover obtains the inventory benefit while omitting the source record, using a one-release/one-witness mechanical coupling.","counterfactual_removal":"With an ordinary unlocked bin and detachable paperwork, obtaining the part and creating the record remain separable actions, so omission remains available."},{"mechanism_slug":"audit_and_penalty_system","role":"Uses only the archetype's physical verification aspect: retained twin tabs and visible breach evidence create an inspectable population. No penalty is part of the essential intervention.","counterfactual_removal":"If retained witnesses and breach evidence are removed, later inspection cannot distinguish a documented port release from a record-free removal; the proposed completeness evidence disappears even if access remains gated."}],"causal_chain":["A custodian needs a part held in the bounded rack.","The intended exit is the least-effort nondestructive access path.","Operating that exit requires pulling the unique twin tab.","The same mechanical stroke releases exactly one part and irreversibly deposits the matching witness half in the cassette.","Possession of a normally released part is therefore physically coupled to creation of contemporaneous source evidence.","An attempted record-free removal must defeat the enclosure or escapement and leaves a distinct material trace if the device performs as specified.","The profitable strategy of taking through the normal port while silently omitting the event is removed from the feasible choice set.","The retained physical witness population can be reconciled with issued parts and remaining stock to test transaction completeness."],"baseline":"Open or conventionally locked bins accompanied by separate handwritten issue slips, with periodic physical counts and retrospective investigation of unexplained differences. Record creation is procedurally requested but is not physically necessary to obtain a part.","nearest_rivals":["A locked cage with a human attendant and sign-out sheet, which depends on staffing and procedural compliance","Periodic full physical inventory counts, which detect aggregate differences after the fact but do not create transaction-level evidence","Barcode or RFID issue tracking, whose operative completeness control commonly depends on scanning compliance, software, and databases","Individually sealed packages with serial labels but no mechanically retained counterpart, which may show opening without producing a controlled issue population","Video surveillance, which produces review burden and privacy risk while not physically coupling each withdrawal to a source witness"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For withdrawals made through a bounded rack's designed port, the twin-tab escapement should make creation of a unique contemporaneous physical witness inseparable from release of one part, whereas a separate paper-slip baseline permits a normal, nondestructive withdrawal with no source record. This claim is limited to physical coupling and does not claim that the device prevents receiving fraud, collusion, forced entry, or financial-statement misstatement by itself.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"A facility or storeroom manager may authorize an inert benchtop trial with approval from the responsible safety lead; only accounting and audit authorities may decide whether resulting evidence is suitable for operational or audit reliance.","authorized_first_step":"Construct and test a nonproduction rack holding inert replica parts, using clearly marked test tabs and no employee performance attribution.","excluded_actions":["Placing live, hazardous, controlled, or production-critical inventory in the prototype","Changing accounting balances, audit conclusions, custody rights, or access privileges based on prototype output","Disciplining or evaluating personnel through adversarial-test results","Using covert surveillance, biometric identification, software analytics, or automated enforcement","Scaling beyond the test fixture before mechanical safety and failure modes are reviewed"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the trial if the rack jams, releases more than one item, creates a pinch or egress hazard, damages contents, or permits an unmarked bypass. Quarantine the fixture, return inert items to ordinary storage, preserve the test artifacts, and remove the fixture without changing any accounting system."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A bounded observation of current discrepancies could show that missing source records arise mainly during receiving, restocking, authorized bulk transfers, breakage, or cutoff timing rather than strategic omission at the issue point. In that case, mechanically coupling issue-port withdrawals to witnesses would target the wrong causal location.","problem_falsifier":"The proposed problem is falsified for the selected setting if direct observation and reconciliation find no feasible normal-path withdrawal without a contemporaneous record, or if unexplained differences are attributable to non-issue processes rather than separability of withdrawal and recording.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if an adversarial user can remove a replica part through the intended port without depositing exactly one correct witness, can deposit a credible witness without releasing the matched part, can swap or duplicate identities without visible discontinuity, or can bypass the enclosure without a detectable material trace. Recurrent jams or double releases also falsify the claimed one-to-one coupling.","risks":["Jams, double releases, or torn tabs could create false evidence and reconciliation noise","The mechanism could delay urgent access or induce unsafe workarounds","Pinch points, sharp tab fragments, or excessive pull force could injure users","Tags or rack materials could contaminate or damage sensitive inventory","Colluding actors could attack replenishment, exchange tagged parts, or remove the cassette","Visible serial information could expose operationally sensitive usage patterns","Auditors could over-rely on issue-point evidence and neglect receiving, returns, scrap, and cutoff risks","Users with limited dexterity or strength could face unequal access unless the fixture is designed and tested for accessibility"]},"next_evidence_step":"Run a bounded benchtop comparison using inert replica parts: script ordinary withdrawals plus adversarial attempts involving omission, double pulling, tab swapping, false-tab creation, and side-access attacks on the prototype and on an open-bin/paper-slip baseline. Have a second person, unaware of the scripted sequence, reconcile retained halves, item halves, remaining stock, and enclosure seals. The prototype advances only if every intended-port release produces exactly one correctly matched witness, no witness appears without a release, and every successful off-port removal leaves the predefined visible breach trace; otherwise revise or reject the mechanism.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed against other proposals because runtime isolation forbids inspecting them; this candidate is derived solely from the supplied archetype and accounting/auditing domain card.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Construct a domain-specific problem with observable accounting evidence","Preserve strategic-choice and truthfulness structure through a physical intervention","Make the essential effect independent of software, reporting, incentives, authorization, and procedural enforcement","Specify bounded falsifiers, safeguards, rivals, and an inert first test"],"conceptual_changes":["Translated incentive-compatible rule design into physical action-set design: ordinary asset release and truthful witness creation become one inseparable material event","Limited the claim to issue-point completeness evidence rather than general fraud prevention or accounting accuracy"],"operational_changes":["Defined a single-exit rack, one-release mechanical escapement, unique frangible twin tabs, retained cassette, and visible enclosure-breach state","Restricted initial testing to inert replica parts and reversible benchtop use"],"evidence_changes":["Specified matched physical artifacts and enclosure traces as directly observable evidence","Defined adversarial one-to-one coupling tests and causal-location counterevidence"],"claim_changes":["Made no claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size","Excluded receiving fraud, collusion, forced entry, and standalone financial-statement assurance from the contrastive claim"]},"substrate_contract":{"primary_allowed_process":"PHYSICAL_MATERIAL","counterfactual_independence":"If all software, algorithmic inference, databases, dashboards, reporting routines, rewards, penalties, permissions, reviews, training, and procedural enforcement are removed, pulling the intended port's tab still mechanically releases exactly one part, irreversibly retains the matched witness half, and prevents a normal-port release without that witness. The essential causal effect—physical coupling of asset movement to source-evidence creation—therefore survives. Governance may later determine how evidence is used, but it does not create the coupling.","forbidden_channel_audit":"The proposal contains no sensor, scanner, network, software control loop, model, database, recommender, automated report, incentive payment, disciplinary rule, or required human sign-out as an operative element. Serial matching can be inspected manually during the bounded test, but neither inspection nor any downstream response causes the one-release/one-witness event. The only supportive governance elements are authorization of an inert trial, safety stopping rules, and later decisions about evidentiary reliance; removing them from the apparatus does not remove its mechanical effect."}}}