{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"An Observational Approach to Representing Interpretation","overlap":"Directly models interpreters' claims about literary texts and distinguishes assertion, denial, support, and defeat, making it the closest domain-specific match.","remaining_difference":"The accessible description does not specify canonical publication/correction events, separate event and record times, append-only supersession, frontier-bearing projections, or deterministic rebuild-and-diff.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Historical Context Ontology (HiCO)","overlap":"Represents interpretation acts, agents, source extraction, roles, time intervals, interpretation types and criteria, citations, and PROV-O provenance in an event-oriented cultural-heritage model.","remaining_difference":"It is an ontology for documenting interpretations rather than an append-only, bitemporal event ledger with correction lineage and pinned replayable reception projections.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"CRMinf Argumentation Model","overlap":"Formally represents argumentation, beliefs, provenance assessments, meaning-comprehension activities, competing interpretations, sources, actors, and time spans.","remaining_difference":"It supplies semantic building blocks but not the proposed controversy-specific ingestion contract, record-time history, deduplicated event acceptance, projection frontiers, or deterministic replay protocol.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"TEI Critical Apparatus","overlap":"Standardizes structured textual witnesses, variant readings, apparatus entries, passage attachment, editorial conjectures, and alternative interactive witness displays.","remaining_difference":"It models textual variation within editions, not the downstream history of critics' assertions, challenges, revisions, retractions, and record-time reception states.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would be falsified if a frozen controversy encoded with existing TEI, HiCO, and CRMinf facilities—without adding equivalent ledger semantics—already reproduced the same prior record-time claim states and all named reception projections, including correction lineage, conflicts, coverage frontiers, and deterministic rebuild results.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a bounded literary controversy, existing interpretation ontologies, argumentation models, and critical-apparatus standards provide many semantic components, but the retained sources do not show their combination as a canonical append-only event register with dual time, correction lineage, declared projection frontiers, and deterministic replay into multiple reception views.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, interpretation and argumentation terminology, critical-edition and ontology practices, and combinations involving provenance, event sourcing, corrections, and bitemporality. Four opened sources from four publishers/projects were retained, including primary research and official standards.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A read-only pilot capped at 20 public documents and 75 events is operationally bounded and can measure encoder agreement, deduplication, disputed identity handling, two record-time reconstructions, and three deterministic projection rebuilds.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The remaining claim predicts that the combined event, dual-time, correction, frontier, and replay contract will reconstruct states that the adjacent ontology and apparatus approaches cannot reproduce without equivalent augmentation; frozen inputs permit a direct comparison.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized first step is read-only, limited to accessible publications and edition records, leaves source and scholarly adjudication authority intact, and includes explicit stops for permissions, false event boundaries, and misrepresentation. No obvious stop blocks that pilot.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The sources establish that interpretation is difficult to formalize, that computational literary systems need to expose claims and their relations, and that witnesses, provenance, and competing interpretations require structured representation. They do not directly document the proposal's precise observable case of two incompatible current summaries lacking executable lineage, so support is partial but sufficient for a pilot.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible at the component level: literary-interpretation research requires explicit claims and nuanced relations; HiCO and CRMinf separately formalize interpretive acts, provenance, beliefs, and competing meanings; TEI separately structures witnesses and passage-level variants. The retained evidence does not demonstrate a concrete controversy in which two current accounts conflict and neither provides executable historical lineage.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P014","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained source exposed the full literary-domain combination of event sourcing, bitemporality, append-only correction, reception projections, frontiers, and deterministic replay.","queries":["event sourcing scholarly knowledge graph claims provenance corrections","\"literary interpretations\" \"event sourcing\"","\"bitemporal\" scholarly claims provenance","scholarly claims provenance model argumentation events corrections bitemporal"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No exact Interpretive Claim Event Ledger implementation was found; the closest direct domain research models literary interpretations as structured observations and claim relations.","queries":["literary interpretation claim event ledger reception history textual variants provenance","\"interpretive claims\" ontology literary criticism passage"],"source_ids":["SRC1"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["TEI Guidelines critical apparatus textual variation witnesses passages official","site:cidoc-crm.org CRMinf argumentation beliefs provenance claims official","digital humanities literary reception history database claims passages editions"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["HiCO ontology hermeneutic interpretation provenance scholarly official","\"reception history\" knowledge graph provenance claims","literary reception database digital humanities interpretation claims graph"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Digital-humanities systems need to document and analyze interpretations of creative works.","The proposed ontology represents interpreters' claims and distinguishes assertion, denial, support, and defeat.","The accessible article description does not present bitemporal event replay or correction-lineage machinery."],"publisher":"SAGE Publications / Applied Ontology","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"An Observational Approach to Representing Interpretation","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15705838251391711"},{"claims_supported":["HiCO models interpretation acts generated by agents from source objects using PROV-O.","It represents roles, events, time intervals, interpretation types and criteria, and citation-related authority signals.","HiCO is close semantic prior art but is not presented as a deterministic event-sourced reception ledger."],"publisher":"Historical Context Ontology project","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Historical Context Ontology (HiCO)","url":"https://hico.sourceforge.net/"},{"claims_supported":["CRMinf models argumentation, beliefs, provenance statements and assessments, and meaning-comprehension activities.","It explicitly supports documenting competing interpretations and their evidentiary information objects.","It provides ontology elements rather than a complete bitemporal replay and projection system."],"publisher":"CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"Classes & Properties Declarations of CRMinf version 1.2.1","url":"https://cidoc-crm.org/extensions/crminf/html/CRMinf_v1.2.1.html"},{"claims_supported":["The TEI critical-apparatus module structures textual witnesses, variant readings, apparatus entries, and links to passages.","TEI can support alternative interactive displays of witness readings.","The apparatus standard addresses textual states but not a replayable history of downstream interpretive claims and responses."],"publisher":"TEI Consortium","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"TEI Guidelines: 13 Critical Apparatus","url":"https://guidelines.tei-c.de/en/html/TC.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found substantial adjacent components but no retained source demonstrating the full proposed combination. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or absence from unsearched publications, products, archives, code repositories, or patent literature."}