{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Springshare LibAnswers ticketing and FAQ/knowledge-base workflow","overlap":"Routes library questions into tickets, supports staff collaboration and internal notes, tracks status, provides searchable FAQs, and can turn tickets into FAQ entries; it also offers PII scrubbing and reference analytics.","remaining_difference":"The retained product description does not establish a separate capacity-capped, 14-day provisional store whose fresh entries are reused during live desk work, transformed by designated curators, linked to authoritative successors, reconciled against catalog records, and automatically evicted.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"QuestionPoint knowledge base for communal reference knowledge","overlap":"Captures librarians' collective knowledge for future reference use and was studied for effects on response time and duplicated effort.","remaining_difference":"The study describes a shared knowledge base rather than an explicitly volatile fast layer with expiration, risk routing, authority labels, controlled promotion, and catalog reconciliation; it also found low use, duplication, and no response-time reduction.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Online reference knowledge-base and reference-authoring blueprint","overlap":"Covers recording reference experience, reuse of prior answers and search strategies, standardized transaction metadata, follow-up processing, transformation of implicit knowledge, and possible integration with WorldCat.","remaining_difference":"It does not specify the proposal's complete two-store governance: de-identified provisional traces available only while fresh, fixed review cadence, curator disposition states, capacity and expiry rules, authority-preserving successor links, and conflict reconciliation with controlled catalog workflows.","source_ids":["SRC3"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrast is falsified if an existing deployed library workflow is shown to let desk staff retrieve fresh de-identified provisional traces during live service and then, through designated curators, reproduce and normalize claims, promote them into authoritative reference or catalog workflows, link and reconcile successors, and expire rejected or stale traces under explicit authority markers. It is also operationally falsified if the bounded pilot yields no later reuse, incomplete curator dispositions, repeated cap overflow, or confusion between provisional and authoritative content.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Relative to the opened prior art, the remaining testable distinction is the combined operation of a deliberately volatile, reusable staff layer and a governed transformative transfer into authoritative library memory, with expiration, authority markers, disposition links, and reconciliation. The individual functions—transaction capture, tickets, internal notes, searchable knowledge bases, metadata, reuse, and ticket-to-FAQ conversion—are already known.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the intervention directly, tacit-knowledge and historical online-reference terminology, commercial reference/helpdesk products, official privacy guidance, QuestionPoint, reference authoring, ticket-to-FAQ conversion, metadata, and catalog-integration combinations. Four opened sources from three publishers were retained, including two primary-research sources, one first-party product source, and one official-guidance source.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed ten-business-day, one-desk shadow pilot is capped at three staff and 50 entries, makes no production changes, records measurable capture, lookup, disposition, backlog, privacy, freshness, and reconciliation outcomes, and supplies explicit rejection conditions.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Although prior art already combines tickets, reusable knowledge bases, transaction metadata, internal notes, and promotion of tickets into FAQs, the proposal still makes a falsifiable system-level claim about fresh provisional reuse plus curated, authority-preserving transfer, expiration, and reconciliation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"Capturing reference traces creates a material privacy risk, consistent with ALA guidance, but the proposed first step uses de-identified synthetic or safely abstracted traces, staff-only access, privacy veto authority, short retention, immediate halting and quarantine, and no automatic or production record changes. Catalog actions remain with authorized cataloging staff.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Empirical literature reports difficulty recalling the best reference resource, duplicated effort, low use of existing knowledge bases, and unmet retention needs; the blueprint also identifies reuse, freshness checking, follow-up processing, and staff-burden concerns. These support the general preservation-versus-validation problem, though they do not directly measure loss or stale reuse of the proposal's exact trace categories at a physical desk.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The general problem is visible: useful reference knowledge can be difficult for individual librarians to recall, collective capture could reduce repeated work, and historical reference knowledge bases have suffered minimal use and duplication. Evidence is indirect for the narrower claim that local query reformulations, access anomalies, and location clues are routinely lost or reused stale, so the exact problem is only partly supported.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P034","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["library reference question ticketing system knowledge base catalog correction workflow","Springshare LibAnswers reference analytics internal notes knowledge base FAQ official","QuestionPoint knowledge base capture reference librarians communal knowledge future use study"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["library reference service staff knowledge base capture reference questions reusable knowledge workflow","libraries reference transaction knowledge management tacit knowledge desk notes"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["Gimlet library reference statistics searchable questions notes product","Springshare LibAnswers reference analytics internal notes knowledge base FAQ official","library reference service privacy guidelines patron queries records ALA"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["QuestionPoint knowledge base capture reference librarians communal knowledge future use study","library knowledge management reference service tacit knowledge systematic study","online reference knowledge base reference authoring ready reference file"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["QuestionPoint was intended to capture and store reference librarians' communal knowledge for future use.","The empirical study found that librarians generally did not use the knowledge base, duplicated effort persisted, and response time did not decline."],"publisher":"Nova Southeastern University, NSUWorks","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"An Investigation of a Knowledge Management Solution for the Improvement of Reference Services","url":"https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_facarticles/519/"},{"claims_supported":["LibAnswers combines library-question ticketing, internal notes, statuses, searchable FAQs, reference analytics, and PII-scrubbing features.","Its workflow can turn tickets into FAQ entries, providing close prior art for staged capture followed by durable knowledge-base publication."],"publisher":"Springshare","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"LibAnswers","url":"https://www.springshare.com/libanswers"},{"claims_supported":["Historical online-reference systems recorded transactions and reference experience for future reuse and training.","The article discusses standardized metadata, storing answer-finding strategies, follow-up processing, knowledge transformation, freshness checking, and possible WorldCat integration.","Expert interviews found use of several reference knowledge bases minimal or nonexistent and identified additional documentation burden as a concern."],"publisher":"American Library Association, RUSQ","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"A Blueprint for Building Online Reference Knowledge Bases","url":"https://journals.ala.org/index.php/rusq/article/view/3229/3398"},{"claims_supported":["Library data-management practices must balance service needs with protection of user privacy.","Privacy and security constraints are relevant to any system capturing traces derived from reference interactions."],"publisher":"American Library Association","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Library Privacy Guidelines","url":"https://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/guidelines"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found substantial adjacent prior art for nearly every component but did not locate the complete governed combination in one retained source. That result does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, implementation feasibility beyond the pilot, or realized value; unindexed products, local workflows, patents, non-English literature, and paywalled materials may contain closer matches."}