{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Prompted think-aloud tracking of evolving reader interpretations","overlap":"Michelson, Lee, and Abdennebi capture dynamic meaning-making and evolving interpretations across three reading-task phases, including repeated prompts and multiple-choice responses.","remaining_difference":"The study reports individual cases rather than testing whether stable cohort interpretation shares conceal offsetting switches, and it supplies no transition matrix, aggregate-to-trajectory crosswalk, or claim-scoping rule.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Reading Activity Traces (RATs/WikiRAT)","overlap":"RATs preserve trajectories of reading, association, and reflection as inspectable artifacts and explicitly address interpretive activity lost through compression or summarization.","remaining_difference":"RATs are a conceptual tracing approach, not an empirical protocol pairing a retained cohort equilibrium with identity-linked interpretation transitions, persistence evidence, or reviewer decisions about fixed reader types.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Panel analysis of aggregate stability with individual-level change","overlap":"Nelson and Tucker directly demonstrate the proposal's core micro-macro pattern: aggregate attitudes remain remarkably stable while panel records reveal systematic individual-level change.","remaining_difference":"The application concerns Supreme Court attitudes rather than interpretations developing during a literary text; it lacks reader-response checkpoints, option-mismatch review, teaching prompts, and the proposed level-of-analysis boundary.","source_ids":["SRC3"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim fails if preregistered blinded scoring of matched summaries shows that flow-aware reports do not reduce unsupported fixed-reader or persistence inferences relative to share-only reports at comparable review time, or if tracked readers are nearly universally persistent and the share-only summaries already restrict themselves to cohort-level claims.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a bounded reading cohort whose checkpoint interpretation-share vector satisfies a predefined stability rule, an identity-preserving flow report will reveal consequential switching or return paths and reduce unsupported claims about persistent reader types compared with an otherwise equivalent share-only report. The retained prior art establishes the components separately but not this literary micro-macro decision test.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Searches covered the exact protocol title and direct problem, reader-response and interpretive-trajectory terminology, longitudinal-panel and aggregation terminology, tracing practices, transition-method combinations, and human-subject guidance. Four opened sources span SAGE, arXiv/Cornell, University of Chicago Press, and HHS/OHRP. The exact-title miss was not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A 30-adult, one-novella, six-checkpoint pilot is reversible and sufficiently bounded to test feasibility, detect whether stable margins coexist with switching, and estimate the direction of the reviewer-claim effect. It should preregister the stability band and scoring rubric, counterbalance or separate review conditions, record option mismatch and conditioning, and remain explicitly nonconfirmatory at this size.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The proposal predicts an observable contrast between identical checkpoint margins and identity-linked transition paths, plus a measurable reduction in unsupported fixed-reader claims under a predefined reviewer rubric. Existing work supports dynamic interpretation tracking and the aggregate-stability/individual-change pattern separately, leaving the combined literary decision claim distinct and falsifiable.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The adult-only, consented, non-graded design permits skipping and withdrawal, limits external action, protects pseudonymous trajectories, and specifies rollback. HHS guidance makes consent an ongoing process and indicates that covered nonexempt human-subject research may require IRB review; therefore an institutional IRB/exemption and privacy determination is a prerequisite where applicable, but the bounded protocol presents no intrinsic safety or authority stop.","source_ids":["SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Reader-domain evidence shows evolving, individually distinctive interpretations during phased reading, while panel research directly shows that aggregate stability can coexist with systematic individual change. No retained source directly demonstrates that reader-response scholars commonly convert stable shares into fixed-reader camps, so prevalence and decision impact remain unverified, but the proposed failure mode itself is visible enough for a pilot.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The mechanism is partly supported: empirical reading research documents evolving individual interpretations, and longitudinal panel research documents stable aggregate results masking individual change. The bounded search did not directly document stable literary-interpretation shares, offsetting reader migrations, and ensuing fixed-camp claims in one study.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P018","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["stable aggregate proportions individual transitions repeated cross sectional ecological fallacy","aggregate stability individual instability opinion panel survey switching stable proportions","\"latent transition analysis\" readers interpretation literary","\"transition matrix\" reader response interpretations story"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact-title query returned no direct match; that phrase miss was not treated as novelty evidence.","queries":["\"Reader Interpretation Flow Protocol\"","\"stable cohort\" interpretation shares readers switching","literary reception \"aggregate stability\" individual readers","\"reader response\" interpretation changes during reading longitudinal study checkpoints"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["\"interpretive trajectories\" readers literary empirical","site:hhs.gov/ohrp regulations informed consent minimal risk identifiable private information research adult volunteers","site:hhs.gov/ohrp Belmont Report respect for persons voluntary consent confidentiality","site:pewresearch.org panel survey same people track change over time methodology"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["empirical literary studies reader trajectories interpretation over time reading","\"interpretive trajectories\" readers literary empirical","aggregate stability individual instability opinion panel survey switching stable proportions","stable aggregate distributions masking individual change longitudinal panel"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Prompted think-aloud methods can capture dynamic meaning-making during reading.","Three reported cases exhibited evolving and individually distinctive interpretations across three reading-task phases with repeated prompts and multiple-choice options."],"publisher":"SAGE Publications","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Textual thinking as evidenced through think-alouds: Designing meanings in interpreting authentic L2 web texts","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13621688221096782"},{"claims_supported":["Reading Activity Traces preserve trajectories of traversal, association, and reflection as inspectable artifacts.","The proposal argues that compression and automated summarization can obscure interpretive labor."],"publisher":"arXiv, Cornell University","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OTHER","title":"Chasing RATs: Tracing Reading for and as Creative Activity","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11031"},{"claims_supported":["A four-year panel study found remarkably stable aggregate support alongside systematic individual-level change.","The study emphasizes examining individual change even when aggregate outcomes appear stable."],"publisher":"University of Chicago Press for the Southern Political Science Association","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"The Stability and Durability of the US Supreme Court's Legitimacy","url":"https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/710143"},{"claims_supported":["Informed consent should be prospective, understandable, voluntary, and ongoing, with participants able to decide whether to withdraw or continue.","Covered nonexempt human-subject research may require IRB review, and privacy risks from identifiable information must be considered."],"publisher":"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Informed Consent FAQs","url":"https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source public-web screen found no retained source integrating stable literary-interpretation shares, identity-preserving reader transitions, and a decision rule restricting fixed-reader claims. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unindexed, paywalled, proprietary, patent, and non-English materials could change the disposition."}