{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"ACUS Recommendation 2026-2, Temporary Rules","overlap":"Directly addresses rules adopted for limited periods while agencies develop permanent approaches. It recommends learning from temporary rules, timely assessment before extension or permanence, public participation, resource-feasibility review, and an internal policy governing whether rules are extended, amended, made permanent, or expired.","remaining_difference":"It does not reconstruct the useful functions of predecessor constraints, separate mandatory legal safeguards from repairs and optional ambitions, impose a cumulative cross-domain launch budget, or route non-core additions through owned later tiers.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"GOV.UK beta-to-live service transition practice","overlap":"Uses limited private and public beta stages, refines scope through evidence, assesses readiness before expansion, examines support and accessibility capacity, and keeps the legacy service operating until the replacement reaches live status.","remaining_difference":"It governs digital-service delivery rather than adjudicatory rulemaking and lacks a predecessor-constraint inventory, legal-authority classification, rulemaking admission rubric, and cumulative procedural-plus-technical complexity budget.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"GAO Agile Assessment Guide","overlap":"Provides established practices for incremental delivery, prioritized backlogs, must/should/could/will-not-have classification, minimum viable products, work-in-progress limits, traceability, complexity estimation, and objective monitoring.","remaining_difference":"It does not preserve due-process invariants, distinguish legally mandatory provisions from discretionary requirements, memorialize the focusing function of a temporary rule, or reserve successor-scope decisions to a rulemaking body.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"HMCTS remote-hearing evaluation and iterative improvement practice","overlap":"Evaluates a rapidly introduced remote-hearing predecessor across users, judges, representatives, staff, technical support, accessibility, communication, procedural justice, and jurisdictional suitability; it notes that normal development would have been tested and rolled out in phases.","remaining_difference":"It supplies evidence and evaluation dimensions but not a governance mechanism for controlling the scope of a permanent successor or cumulatively admitting and staging rule, platform, training, integration, and support additions.","source_ids":["SRC2"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"In a blinded comparison against ordinary successor planning, the claim is falsified if the proposed inventory and firewall do not increase inter-reviewer agreement about legal authority and work class, do not reveal cumulative launch burdens or coupling earlier, misclassify mandatory safeguards as optional at an equal or higher rate, or permit over-budget additions without more visible recorded justification.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For conversion of a temporary remote benefits-appeal procedure into a permanent successor, pairing each released predecessor constraint with an explicit replacement discipline—and requiring every non-core addition to cross one cumulative legal, procedural, technical, training, integration, and support launchability gate or enter an owned, trigger-based later tier—may improve governability beyond temporary-rule review, agile backlog prioritization, or phased implementation alone.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the exact proposal name, remote-benefits and temporary-to-permanent rulemaking terminology, regulatory experimentation and retrospective review, government service-transition practices, agile prioritization, and combinations involving scope, backlog, complexity, and phased rollout. Four opened sources from three institutional publishers were retained, including official guidance and primary research. No exact named firewall was located, but the conclusion does not treat that phrase miss as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed 30-day, read-only review of one program, at most 40 support or exception records, two analysts, and an independent legal reviewer is time-, sample-, actor-, and output-bounded. Agreement, misclassification, newly surfaced burdens, coupling, bypass attempts, and unstaggable requirements are observable measures consistent with evaluation, prioritization, and readiness-assessment practices in the retained sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The retained practices separately cover temporary-rule assessment, remote-hearing evaluation, staged legacy replacement, prioritized backlogs, and capacity controls. None of them combines predecessor constraint-function memory, legally differentiated lanes, a cumulative cross-domain launch budget, an admission rubric, and trigger-based deferral under rulemaking authority. The incremental contribution is therefore distinct enough for a comparative desk test.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized step is read-only and leaves rule scope to the constituted rulemaking body and individual hearing decisions to adjudicators. The halt rule protects mandatory safeguards and pending cases. This allocation is compatible with official sources emphasizing separate rulemaking, public participation, accessibility, continued legacy operation, user support, and case-sensitive hearing suitability. Independent legal review remains necessary because actual state authority was not examined.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The exact asserted mixed successor docket is not publicly verified, but the underlying problem is visible in close analogs: ACUS identifies resource, uncertainty, continuity, and public-confidence risks when temporary rules are assessed for permanence; HMCTS documents a contingency remote-hearing system not ready for scale, normally phased development displaced by urgency, technical and communication burdens, and differing support needs; GAO documents schedule and cost risks from nonessential work and boundless development.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Partly supported. Public evidence confirms that temporary rules require resource-conscious assessment before permanence and that rapid remote-hearing expansion can create technical, communication, training, accessibility, support, and jurisdiction-specific burdens. It also confirms established risks from unbounded or poorly prioritized requirements. The search did not verify the proposal's specific state tribunal, predecessor-created wish-list stockpile, single mixed requirements list, or inability to articulate a bounded launch rule.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P009","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["rulemaking scope management phased implementation regulatory requirements complexity cumulative burden","site:gao.gov agile incremental development requirements scope creep minimum viable product government","remote administrative hearings benefits appeals procedural fairness empirical study report"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact title produced no direct match; this was treated only as a phrase miss, not as evidence of novelty.","queries":["\"Successor Rulemaking Scope Firewall\"","\"remote benefits appeal\" permanent rulemaking phased implementation","rulemaking scope management phased implementation regulatory requirements complexity cumulative burden"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:gov.uk/service-manual minimum viable product scope prioritise backlog service standard","site:gov.uk/service-manual phased launch private beta public beta governance","site:gao.gov agile assessment guide product backlog prioritization minimum viable product release planning"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["\"temporary rule\" permanent successor scope backlog complexity budget","regulatory experimentation temporary rule retrospective review phased rollout legacy service","administrative tribunal remote hearings permanent procedure evaluation access justice benefits appeals"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Temporary rules may support regulatory learning and experimentation.","Agencies contemplating permanence should assess temporary rules in time to avoid uncertainty.","Assessment should consider staff burden, continuity risks, public participation, and whether to extend, amend, make permanent, or expire a rule."],"publisher":"Administrative Conference of the United States and Office of the Federal Register","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Administrative Conference Recommendation 2026-2: Temporary Rules","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/11/2026-02753/adoption-of-recommendations"},{"claims_supported":["HMCTS evaluated remote hearings using surveys and qualitative interviews across public users, judges, representatives, staff, and support professionals.","The contingency platform was introduced when the strategic service was not ready for scale; the report says ordinary development would have been tested, evaluated, and phased.","Remote hearings produced measurable technical, communication, document-access, support, accessibility, and jurisdiction-specific issues, including in Social Security and Child Support appeals."],"publisher":"HM Courts & Tribunals Service","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Evaluation of remote hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic: Research report","url":"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b71ebd8fa8f5037b09c7b1/Evaluation_of_remote_hearings_v23.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Replacement services should progress through limited private and public beta stages and readiness assessment.","A legacy service should remain available until its replacement reaches the live phase.","Scope, support capacity, accessibility, operational constraints, and safe transition are explicit assessment concerns."],"publisher":"UK Government Digital Service","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"How the beta phase works","url":"https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/agile-delivery/how-the-beta-phase-works"},{"claims_supported":["Government programs can prioritize requirements in backlogs and classify them as must, should, could, or will not have.","A minimum viable product must remain usable and create a feedback loop.","The guide warns that excessive flexibility can permit boundless development and recommends complexity estimation, traceability, incremental delivery, work-in-progress limits, and objective monitoring."],"publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Agile Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Agile Adoption and Implementation (GAO-20-590G)","url":"https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-590g.pdf"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent official practices but no opened source containing the proposal's full mechanism combination. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or absence of undiscovered tribunal rules, internal dockets, procurement materials, scholarship, patents, or non-indexed implementations."}