{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp12_substrate_denial72_20260805","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp12_light_screen_20260805","cell_id":"synchronized_release_dampening__accounting_auditing","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["audit PBC request list client burden duplicate requests trial balance ready evidence requests","audit PBC \"capacity\" \"requests\" stagger sequence","PBC request list dependency schedule release cohort client capacity"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"No retained source described the full audit-specific combination of a trial-balance-triggered queue, capacity-refilled admission tokens, artifact-level coalescing, maximum waits, and an urgent bypass. Phrase and mechanism misses are not evidence of novelty."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["audit client request management stagger requests capacity workload PBC","prepared by client PBC requests bottleneck duplicate requests audit research","audit support schedules client workload duplicate requests"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["site:suralink.com audit request list duplicate requests client burden PBC","site:auditboard.com PBC request management duplicate requests audit client","audit portal PBC request management status owner due date duplicate requests","PCAOB audit evidence timing procedures sufficient appropriate evidence client requests"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["audit evidence requests \"work in progress limit\" OR token bucket OR admission control","audit document request deduplicate artifact multiple workstreams","PBC request list dependency schedule release cohort client capacity","client accounting capacity realistic deadlines audit request queue"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":"Search exposed dependency sequencing, phase separation, capacity-calibrated deadlines, centralized tracking, and duplicate-request reduction separately, but not an audit-specific dynamic work-effort admission gate combined with canonical retrieval tasks."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"AS 1105: Audit Evidence","publisher":"Public Company Accounting Oversight Board","url":"https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS1105","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","claims_supported":["Auditors must plan and perform procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence.","Evidence relevance depends partly on procedure timing, and company-produced information must be tested for accuracy and completeness and evaluated for precision and detail.","Centralized retrieval or scheduling cannot replace the auditor's responsibility to perform and document the required procedures and evaluate evidence reliability."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","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 request loops can stall fieldwork and consume capacity.","The article identifies duplicate requests, including two associates requesting the same schedule.","It recommends sequencing requests according to audit-plan dependencies and separating planning requests from fieldwork requests.","Late evidence-readiness problems can cascade into compressed testing time."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"PBC Requests","publisher":"AuditDashboard","url":"https://www.auditdashboard.com/pbc-requests","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["Commercial PBC-management software already centralizes requests, files, conversations, owners, dates, and status.","The vendor explicitly presents duplicate requests and fragmented inbox information as existing inefficiencies.","The product automatically advances request status after client submission and supports professional review and follow-up."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Audit Readiness and PBC Coordination That Works","publisher":"Kranz Consulting","url":"https://kranz.consulting/insights/audit-readiness-and-pbc-coordination-that-works/","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","claims_supported":["Finance teams may be stretched by audit requests immediately after close while also performing other high-stakes work.","An aggressive PBC list imposed on a lean accounting team can cause work and audit deadlines to slip.","Recommended practices include deadlines calibrated to actual capacity, one owner per request, and a shared status tracker.","The article distinguishes transient coordination issues from cases where outside capacity is required."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The sources make the surrounding problem visible: PBC work can collide with post-close accounting demands, exceed practical team bandwidth, involve duplicate schedule requests, stall evidence collection, and compress downstream testing. Existing guidance also recognizes dependency sequencing and capacity-calibrated deadlines. However, the retained evidence does not directly establish the proposal's more specific empirical signature—a documented trial-balance-ready event causing a narrow, engagement-wide issuance spike followed by transient queue aging—so that trigger-linked mechanism remains to be measured.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Dependency-sequenced, phased PBC request management","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Sequences PBC requests according to audit-plan dependencies, separates planning from fieldwork, links evidence and review to requests, and recognizes duplicate schedule requests and downstream compression.","remaining_difference":"It does not describe admission based on observed client preparation-and-review capacity, replenished effort tokens, maximum-wait guards, or a canonical artifact retrieval task linked to distinct audit procedures."},{"name":"Centralized PBC portal with assignment and status workflow","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Centralizes requests and evidence, exposes ownership and dates, automates status transitions, preserves review feedback, and targets duplicate-request inefficiency.","remaining_difference":"It does not claim trigger-gated cohort release, active-effort caps, capacity recovery signals, starvation protection, or artifact-key-based single-flight retrieval."},{"name":"Capacity-calibrated PBC planning and coordination","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Calls for realistic deadlines based on actual client bandwidth, named owners, centralized status visibility, advance preparation, and additional staffing when capacity is genuinely insufficient.","remaining_difference":"It is primarily client-side planning and project management, not an audit-controlled dynamic admission policy that distinguishes transient release correlation from sustained overload or coalesces valid shared artifacts."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Holding audit scope, evidence requirements, staffing, deadlines, and individual auditor judgments fixed, a capacity-refilled admission gate combined with valid artifact-level single-flight retrieval will reduce the peak active client effort and repeated retrievals caused specifically by a trial-balance-linked issuance spike, beyond the reductions achieved by dependency-based fixed staging and centralized request tracking, without increasing deadline violations, urgent-work delay, or maximum wait.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if retrospective data show no trial-balance-linked issuance concentration, no transient capacity exceedance, or no valid artifact overlap; or if shadow replay shows that the proposed policy does not outperform fixed dependency staging on peak active effort and repeated retrievals, or only does so by breaching deadlines, delaying urgent work, exceeding maximum waits, or merging evidence that requires separate lineage or retrieval.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct formulations, PBC and older practitioner terminology, standards and commercial practices, and combinations involving dependency sequencing, capacity, duplicate requests, work-in-progress limits, admission control, and artifact reuse. Exactly four opened sources from four publishers were retained, including an official standard and a first-party product source. The result remains a coarse screen, not an exhaustive literature or patent search.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Practitioner and product sources independently expose client bandwidth pressure, request-related delay, duplicate schedules, fragmented coordination, and compressed fieldwork. The precise common-signal spike is unverified, so evidence is only partial, which still satisfies this screen's problem gate.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Prior art covers sequencing, phase separation, centralized tracking, duplicate-request reduction, and capacity-aware deadlines, but the remaining claim narrowly contrasts a dynamic capacity-refilled effort gate plus valid artifact coalescing against fixed dependency staging and portal tracking using measurable outcomes.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A read-only review of at most 200 records from one completed engagement, followed by shadow replay of identical requests under all-at-once, fixed staging, and dynamic admission policies, is bounded and can measure the trigger signature, peak effort, duplicate retrieval, waits, exceptions, and deadline breaches without changing a live audit.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first step is retrospective and read-only. Audit authority remains with the engagement partner, and the design preserves separate procedures and judgments. Any later use must preserve evidence relevance, reliability, accuracy, completeness, lineage, and timely access to sufficient appropriate evidence; client capacity input cannot become a veto over required work.","source_ids":["SRC1"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source public-web screen supports only an adjacent-prior-art disposition and a researchable remaining contrast. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, prevalence, expert acceptance, realized value, or the absence of undiscovered implementations, internal firm practices, patents, standards, or non-indexed product features."}