{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Says Who? Effective Zero-Shot Annotation of Focalization","overlap":"Uses bounded literary excerpts, a predefined focalization taxonomy, independent annotations, measured disagreement, consensus or adjudication, and a confidence proxy. It directly demonstrates that perspective classification can be difficult and systematically recorded.","remaining_difference":"It produces a single categorical label and resolves every disagreement; it does not preserve an observation–inference split, ranked rival explanations, a textual or edition-based disconfirming probe, revision triggers, or an action limit.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"CATMA","overlap":"Supports collaborative, taxonomy-guided or exploratory literary annotation and permits multiple overlapping interpretations of the same passage.","remaining_difference":"It is a flexible annotation environment, not a prescribed perspective-attribution docket requiring comparative explanatory criteria, a nearest rival, confidence boundary, discriminating probe, or reranking log.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"TEI Critical Apparatus","overlap":"Provides structured, location-linked records of variant readings, competing readings or conjectures, editorial responsibility, and certainty; it can preserve alternatives rather than silently overwrite them.","remaining_difference":"It addresses textual witnesses and editorial encoding rather than competing narratological explanations of perspective, and it does not prescribe an inference-to-best-explanation matrix, downstream action boundary, or disconfirming contextual probe.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"In a blinded comparison using the same passage and context, the claim is falsified if docket users do not outperform ordinary-note users on a prespecified composite requiring separation of observation from interpretation, retention of a credible nearest rival, an outcome-sensitive reranking probe, and an explicit action limit—or if any gain is offset by systematically excluding credible explanations.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Compared with ordinary close-reading notes, a Passage Attribution Docket will produce more reviewable and revisable perspective attributions by requiring explicit rival comparison, an unresolved-tie option, a disconfirming probe, revision triggers, and an action limit, without claiming to determine authorial intent.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal wording, perspective-attribution and older narratological terms, annotation products and textual-criticism standards, and combinations involving rival explanations, confidence, disagreement, and edition variants. Four opened sources span four publishers and include primary research, a first-party product, and an official standard.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A single public-domain passage, two small groups, fixed record-quality outcomes, and retention of all records form a reversible, limited test. SRC2 shows that independent excerpt-level focalization annotation and blinded disagreement measurement are operationally feasible; SRC3 can support annotations but is not required.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The docket can be contrasted with ordinary notes on observable record properties rather than interpretive correctness. Existing work uses taxonomic labels, consensus, flexible annotations, or variant apparatuses, but the retained sources do not combine explicit rivals, comparative fit, an unresolved-tie state, a reranking probe, and an action boundary.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The proposed first step is limited to reversible annotations and inquiry. Interpretive acceptance remains with the group, publication changes remain with the editor, and contradiction or edition dependence triggers withdrawal and reopening. No obvious safety or authority stop appears at this scale.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Controlled experiments show that unmarked observations permit narrator-versus-character ambiguity and that subtle contextual markers materially alter attribution. Independent focalization annotation also produced only mid-to-low agreement and documented confusion about character versus external perspective. Evidence for ambiguity and disagreement is strong, although these sources do not directly measure later interpretive hardening or brittleness.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The core problem is visible: perspective attribution can remain genuinely ambiguous without explicit markers, can change with subtle local cues, and yields substantial disagreement even among informed annotators. The further claim that an initially vivid reading routinely hardens and contaminates downstream seminar interpretation is not directly established by the retained sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P015","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained source described the full combination of a passage-level rival-explanation fit matrix, unresolved-tie state, disconfirming textual or edition probe, revision log, and action boundary.","queries":["literary interpretation worksheet rival hypotheses evidence matrix passage perspective attribution free indirect discourse","inference to best explanation literary interpretation competing hypotheses evidence","free indirect discourse annotation guidelines ambiguity annotator confidence perspective cues","literary interpretation disconfirming probe rival explanations"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact phrase “Passage Attribution Docket” and close variants produced no direct implementation match.","queries":["\"Passage Attribution Docket\"","\"passage attribution\" \"free indirect discourse\" matrix","narrative perspective attribution docket","ambiguous narrative perspective attribution annotation protocol focalization free indirect discourse"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["digital literary annotation tool competing interpretations confidence evidence CATMA","textual criticism variants edition collation literary interpretation apparatus guidelines","relevant products practices standards literary annotation focalization","TEI critical apparatus certainty responsibility variant readings"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["ambiguous narrative perspective attribution annotation protocol focalization free indirect discourse","free indirect discourse focalization narrator character attribution cues","tracking point of view in narrative psychological point of view","subjective narration annotation guidelines fiction"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Narrated perceptions can permit both narrator and character perspective interpretations.","Absence of viewpoint markers can make attribution uncertain.","Two experiments found that contextual viewpoint markers significantly shifted reader attribution while verb tense did not."],"publisher":"Taylor & Francis / Discourse Processes","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Ambiguous Perspective in Narrative Discourse: Effects of Viewpoint Markers and Verb Tense on Readers’ Interpretation of Represented Perceptions","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320910900_Ambiguous_Perspective_in_Narrative_Discourse_Effects_of_Viewpoint_Markers_and_Verb_Tense_on_Readers%27_Interpretation_of_Represented_Perceptions"},{"claims_supported":["Focalization was annotated independently on bounded literary excerpts using a three-category scheme.","Human inter-annotator reliability was mid-to-low, with documented confusion between character and external perspective.","The study resolved disagreements through discussion or external adjudication and evaluated confidence, but forced final categorical labels."],"publisher":"Association for Computers and the Humanities","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Says Who? Effective Zero-Shot Annotation of Focalization","url":"https://anthology.ach.org/volumes/vol0003/says-who-effective-zero-shot-annotation-of/10.63744%40xxqzxENxsh3b.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["CATMA supports individual or collaborative literary annotation.","Users may work with predefined taxonomies or develop categories exploratorily.","Multiple overlapping interpretations of a passage can be retained."],"publisher":"CATMA project","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"CATMA — Computer Assisted Text Markup and Analysis","url":"https://catma.de/"},{"claims_supported":["TEI defines structured, location-linked apparatus entries for textual variants and multiple readings.","The standard supports recording editorial preference, responsibility, and degree of certainty.","It distinguishes witness readings from conjectures and can preserve divergent scholarly readings."],"publisher":"Text Encoding Initiative Consortium","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"TEI Guidelines: Critical Apparatus","url":"https://guidelines.tei-c.de/en/html/TC.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent practices and components but no opened source implementing the complete proposed docket. That result does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unsearched books, course materials, local scholarly workflows, patents, and non-indexed systems may contain closer matches."}