{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Remote-witness environment-and-process mock-trial experiment","overlap":"Randomly assigned mock witnesses to conditions varying supporting physical environment/technology and relational support; measured perceived voice, respect, and rapport and found environmental, process, and combined effects.","remaining_difference":"It concerns audiovisual witness participation, bundles technology with physical environment, relies mainly on participant perceptions, and does not cross judicial facilitators with instrumented courtroom geometries or separate acoustics, sightlines, distributed staff actions, and occupant effects.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"U.S. Courts Design Guide acoustic requirements","overlap":"Specifies courtroom reverberation, background-noise, isolation, speech-intelligibility, geometry, and surface-treatment requirements suitable for verifying meaningful physical contrasts.","remaining_difference":"It is a design standard, not a causal study of whether participation changes follow the room, the judicial occupant, distributed practices, or their interaction.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Harlem community housing-court study","overlap":"Examined self-represented tenants in two housing-court settings using surveys and structured courtroom observations, including perceived fairness, accessibility, respect, and comprehensibility.","remaining_difference":"The comparison is observational and bundles judge, courthouse, procedure, staffing, clientele, and physical setting; it does not reconstruct rooms, instrument exposures, substitute facilitators, or measure completed turns and clarification events under controlled scripts.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"Accessible-courthouse integrated design guidance","overlap":"Treats courtroom accessibility as an interaction of architecture, acoustics, assistive communication, staff practices, flexibility, and participation, and emphasizes involving disabled users and maintaining effective communication.","remaining_difference":"It offers requirements and best practices rather than an attribution experiment separating occupant, position, material setting, and distributed execution.","source_ids":["SRC1"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if calibrated measurements show no reliable exposure difference between the reversible configurations, or if a valid crossed comparison shows participation events follow facilitator identity without any room effect or facilitator-by-room interaction; it is also defeated if facilitator, script, and configuration cannot be independently crossed or predefined events cannot be coded reliably.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Under fixed scripts and formal roles, at least one measured hearing-room condition—such as reverberation, speech intelligibility, distance, orientation, or sightline—will change completed speaking turns or clarification behavior independently of facilitator identity, while a facilitator-by-configuration interaction remains estimable rather than being absorbed into a personal-style explanation.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, pro se/lawyerless and built-environment terminology, official accessibility and courtroom-design guidance, housing-court observation, and experimental combinations of physical environment, relational process, and participant voice. No exact facilitator-by-geometry housing-court crossover was located, but a close mock-trial factorial analogue and relevant standards were found.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A 12-session, two-facilitator mock-hearing crossover is finite and operationally measurable. Official acoustic metrics provide calibration targets, while prior mock-trial research demonstrates that environmental and process conditions can be manipulated and analyzed without using live disputes.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The proposal adds a distinct contrast: whether instrument-confirmed room effects on speaking-turn and clarification events persist after facilitator substitution, versus effects that follow the facilitator or their interaction. The closest experiment varied remote environment and support but did not perform this attribution.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"A reversible, non-adjudicative mock-room study is not facially stopped by the retained sources. Accessibility, effective communication, egress, confidentiality, and accommodation obligations must remain controlling conditions; the official guidance supports flexibility and integrated access planning rather than bypassing those duties.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The general problem is visible: acoustics and distance affect courtroom communication; self-represented litigants require practices enabling them to be heard; physical environment and relational support can jointly affect perceived voice; and housing-court experiences vary across settings. The proposal's precise local before-and-after account is not independently established.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Public evidence partly supports the proposed attribution problem. Official guidance recognizes acoustics, layout, assistive communication, and operational practices as participation-relevant; experimental mock-trial evidence shows environmental and relational manipulations can affect voice-related perceptions; and housing-court research documents setting-linked differences for self-represented tenants. None of the retained sources verifies the specific renovated-room/prominent-judge episode or isolates its causal contributors.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P002","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No exact study was found combining instrumented acoustic and sightline manipulation, facilitator substitution, scripted housing matters, distributed-actor coding, and responsibility-bounded attribution.","queries":["mock courtroom experiment acoustics reverberation sightlines judicial behavior crossover","mock courtroom study room layout acoustics participation speech intelligibility court","empirical study courtroom design physical environment litigant participation judge behavior acoustics"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No exact public match was found for a reversible old-versus-renovated housing-court reconstruction crossed with substitute judicial facilitators.","queries":["courtroom acoustics speech intelligibility self represented litigants participation procedural fairness courtroom design","housing court self represented litigants judge communication procedural justice study","instrumented hearing room reconstruction judge architecture attribution"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["courtroom design acoustics standards speech transmission accessibility hearing rooms","U.S. Courts Design Guide courtroom reverberation speech intelligibility","accessible courthouse courtroom acoustics assistive listening systems"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["pro se lawyerless housing court right to be heard judicial practices","courtroom built environment communication procedural justice","courtroom architecture judgecraft litigant voice participation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Courtroom accessibility depends on architectural and operational measures, not architecture alone.","Acoustics affect speech understanding, particularly for people with hearing loss.","Courts have effective-communication and accommodation obligations, and flexible integrated design is recommended."],"publisher":"U.S. Access Board","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Designing Accessible Courthouses","url":"https://www.access-board.gov/ada/additional-resources/designing-accessible-courthouses.html"},{"claims_supported":["Courtroom acoustic performance can be specified through reverberation time, background noise, noise isolation, and speech intelligibility.","The guide specifies courtroom targets including 0.6–0.7 seconds reverberation and minimum enhanced STI of 0.75.","Courtroom geometry and surface treatments affect sound distribution and can be evaluated technically."],"publisher":"Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"U.S. Courts Design Guide (2021)","url":"https://legacy.wbdg.org/FFC/GSA/courts.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Mock witnesses were randomly assigned to conditions varying technology/supporting physical environment and relational process.","Improved environment increased perceived respect; enhanced information and support increased perceived voice and rapport.","Combined environmental and process improvements produced compounding effects, providing adjacent evidence for actor-environment interaction."],"publisher":"Tilburg Law Review / Ubiquity Press","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Remote Witnesses: Improving Their Experience of Technology, Orientation and Environment When Participating via Audio-Visual Links","url":"https://tilburglawreview.com/articles/10.5334/tilr.390"},{"claims_supported":["Self-represented tenants' housing-court experiences were studied across Harlem and downtown Manhattan settings.","The research used participant surveys supplemented by structured courtroom observations.","It examined perceived fairness, accessibility, timeliness, respect, and comprehensibility but did not experimentally separate judge and setting effects."],"publisher":"Court Review / American Judges Association","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"The Perceptions of Self-Represented Tenants in a Community-Based Housing Court","url":"https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/228/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This coarse, bounded public-web screen found adjacent standards, guidance, housing-court observation, and a close environment-by-process mock-trial experiment, but no exact facilitator-by-instrumented-room housing-court crossover. That absence does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; patent databases, non-indexed court evaluations, procurement records, architectural consulting work, dissertations, and unpublished pilots were not exhaustively searched."}