{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"USCIS AAO non-precedent-to-adopted decision process","overlap":"AAO decisions begin as non-precedential case dispositions; USCIS may adopt selected decisions as policy guidance, while authority for policy and legal interpretation remains with designated offices. Sensitive information is redacted before publication.","remaining_difference":"The source starts with completed appellate decisions, not minimal issue traces captured during docket work. It does not disclose a bounded fast ledger with expiration, risk-triggered transfer, recorded rejection, backlog controls, or automated reconciliation against later canonical changes.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"ACUS selective precedential-decision framework","overlap":"ACUS recommends explicit criteria, procedures, authority, status labels, internal communication, and publication for selectively elevating adjudicative decisions, including useful decisions labeled adopted, informative, or notable.","remaining_difference":"The framework governs completed decisions and their precedential designation; it does not specify rapid provisional issue capture, mandatory confirmation before adverse use, timed eviction, or synchronization between a working issue store and a canonical interpretive register.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Justice Canada linked legal-file and precedent-repository environment","overlap":"Justice Canada operates an official legal-precedent repository alongside legal-file, collaboration, and records systems, including links between LEX and Justipedia. Its audit addresses capture, transfer, curation, timeliness, governance, and lifecycle management.","remaining_difference":"The disclosed environment is broader legal knowledge management, not an administrative-hearing workflow separating expiring, nonauthoritative issue traces from formally approved interpretations with per-entry promotion, rejection, and conflict reconciliation.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"SSA post-effectuation recurring-issue quality review","overlap":"SSA samples completed hearing decisions, identifies recurrent decisional issues, and uses findings for policy clarification, procedural changes, software, training, and adjudicator feedback without changing outcomes in post-effectuation review.","remaining_difference":"This is retrospective quality assurance rather than a searchable docket-side ledger. It lacks a provisional-to-canonical record lifecycle, visible freshness and authority markers, selective promotion, expiration, and two-store invalidation controls.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining distinction would be falsified by a direct source or field audit showing an existing administrative-adjudication system that already combines near-docket capture of source-linked, explicitly nonauthoritative and expiring issue traces with authorized search, adverse-use confirmation, risk-triggered and scheduled review, documented promotion or rejection, and systematic invalidation and conflict reconciliation against a versioned canonical register.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"The supportable contrast is narrower than creating precedent or legal knowledge management generally: the proposal couples low-friction capture of pre-canonical recurring issues during hearing work to a governed lifecycle that preserves provisional status, requires official-source confirmation for adverse use, and forces timely validation, promotion or rejection, expiration, and reconciliation with formally controlled guidance.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four lanes covered the proposal directly, historical and synonymous terminology, concrete agency practices and products, and combinations of capture, curation, precedent designation, expiration, and reconciliation. Four opened direct sources represent four publishers and include official and primary material. No exact-phrase result was treated as evidence of novelty.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed read-only simulation is limited to 30 closed, de-identified matters from one unit and one three-month period, with specified measurements and stop conditions. Justice Canada's targeted review and SSA's sampling of completed decisions show that retrospective capture and recurring-issue assessments are practicable comparators; USCIS demonstrates redaction and status differentiation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The claim can be tested against adjacent systems by measuring whether near-docket provisional capture plus governed transfer yields reconstructable, current canonical issue records without unresolved conflicts, expired exposure, or excess backlog. The retained sources disclose selective adoption, curation, and recurring-issue feedback, but not the claimed end-to-end lifecycle.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"No obvious stop applies to the authorized first step because it is retrospective, read-only, de-identified, and cannot affect rulings, parties, deadlines, entitlements, or official records. The proposal's authority separation is consistent with USCIS's non-precedent/adopted distinction and ACUS's emphasis on defined designation authority; SSA also distinguishes post-effectuation learning from interference with individual adjudication. Privacy, unequal access, and shadow-law risks remain controls to test, not reasons to bar the simulation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"SSA reports recurring decisional issues, severe hearing backlogs, and a need to convert review findings into policy clarification and training. Justice Canada's audit found missed upload deadlines, inconsistent practices, incomplete or stale contributions, missing tacit knowledge, and limited practitioner time for capture and curation. These support the storage-and-transfer problem, although they do not directly establish the proposal's full claim about docket notes, email, or shadow authority in the selected unit.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible at a coarse level: administrative adjudication produces recurring issues that feed later policy clarification, while official legal-knowledge systems can suffer delayed, inconsistent, incomplete, or missing capture. Evidence is only partial for the proposal's unit-specific assertion that recent traces reside in docket notes or email and acquire unofficial authority.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P024","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained source disclosed the complete combination of a docket-side provisional issue ledger, expiring entries, selective canonical promotion, recorded rejection, and automated reconciliation. Component-level matches were found across the retained sources; this bounded miss is not evidence of novelty.","queries":["\"provisional issue ledger\" legal interpretations adjudication","adjudicator provisional issue log canonical guidance promotion expiration reconciliation","two store legal knowledge provisional canonical precedent workflow","docket-side ledger recurring legal questions"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["administrative adjudication internal precedent database hearing officers recurring legal issues guidance knowledge management","administrative tribunal knowledge management system issue log legal interpretations","site:acus.gov adjudication internal guidance precedent decisions searchable database","site:ssa.gov recurring issues decision making policy clarification adjudicators"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:uscis.gov adopted decisions non-precedent decisions policy guidance process Administrative Appeals Office","site:acus.gov \"Precedential Decision Making\" agency adjudication recommendation","administrative adjudication quality assurance feedback update guidance recurring issues case review","legal knowledge management precedent repository governance validation audit"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["agency adjudicators benchbook precedent notebook shared legal issues database provisional guidance","hearing examiner precedent notebook case law digest adopted decisions","legal knowledge management precedent bank tacit knowledge capture curation","administrative tribunal knowledge bank recurring legal issues"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["AAO generally issues non-precedent decisions that bind the parties but do not create or modify agency guidance or practice.","USCIS may adopt an AAO non-precedent decision as policy guidance for USCIS employees.","Non-precedent decisions are redacted for personally identifying and sensitive information, and personnel may not cite them as legal authority in other decisions."],"publisher":"U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"AAO Practice Manual, Chapter 3: Appeals — Non-Precedent, Adopted, and Precedent Decisions","url":"https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/aao-decisions/AAO_DHS_Precedent_Decision_Process_Print_Version.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Agencies use selective precedential designation to promote consistency, predictability, uniformity, and efficiency.","Agencies sometimes label useful nonprecedential decisions adopted, informative, or notable.","Agencies should define designation criteria, procedures, authority, legal effect, communication, and treatment of superseded decisions."],"publisher":"Administrative Conference of the United States","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Administrative Conference Recommendation 2022-4: Precedential Decision Making in Agency Adjudication","url":"https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Precedential%20Decision%20Making%20in%20Agency%20Adjudication%20Post-Plenary%20Adopted%20Recommendation%202022.12.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["A targeted review found legal-knowledge upload deadlines were rarely observed and practices varied across groups and professionals.","Some repository contributions were incomplete or out of date, and tacit legal knowledge was often missing.","Justice Canada uses an official precedent repository alongside legal-file, collaboration, and records systems; LEX can link or share records with Justipedia.","The audit recommended assessing whether additional practices, processes, or controls were needed for knowledge capture and curation."],"publisher":"Department of Justice Canada","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Audit of Legal Knowledge Management","url":"https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cp-pm/aud-ver/2021/alkm-agsj/index.html"},{"claims_supported":["SSA's Division of Quality samples completed hearing decisions and collects data about recurring decision-making issues.","Post-effectuation reviews identify recurrent issues for policy clarification, procedural changes, software, training, and feedback without changing case outcomes.","SSA described hearing backlogs, limited practitioner resources, and the need for timely, data-driven policy clarification while preserving adjudicative independence."],"publisher":"U.S. Social Security Administration","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OTHER","title":"Statement for the Record of Debra Bice, Chief Administrative Law Judge, for the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee","url":"https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_100713.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This was a bounded public-web screen, not a patent or exhaustive literature search. The adjacent-prior-art finding means only that no retained source disclosed the full claimed combination. It does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, implementation feasibility, or realized value; undisclosed internal systems, procurement materials, archives, patents, and non-indexed practices may contain closer matches."}