{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"PREMIS event and object-linkage model","overlap":"Records time-stamped preservation events, success/partial-success/failure outcomes, detailed errors, and links to affected digital objects; a failed fixity check becomes an actionable permanent record.","remaining_difference":"It supplies the provenance data model but does not prescribe a joint stable aggregate/object-trajectory display, recurrence or duration analysis, cohort decomposition, or a human-review gate for sustained excursions.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Archivematica Storage Service fixity history","overlap":"Performs repository-wide batch fixity checking and exposes each AIP's dated success/failure history and previous errors.","remaining_difference":"It is close implementation-level prior art for object histories, but the retained documentation does not show comparison against a stable repository-wide compliance rate, reduced-redundancy durations, correlated replica exposure, cohort-level thresholds, or trajectory-gated governance review.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Established fixity-error investigation and reliability modeling","overlap":"NDSA survey results report checking, troubleshooting, and replacement after fixity errors; storage-reliability research models latent-fault detection, repair speed, and replica independence.","remaining_difference":"These sources support incident response and stress-test variables, but do not combine them into the proposal's macro-versus-trajectory relevance test and predeclared human-review routing rule.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if harmonizing identifiers, audit schedules, coverage, and timestamps removes the apparent recurrent or clustered trajectories, or if predeclared trajectory flags cannot be manually reproduced, do not distinguish preservation-relevant cases from ordinary incident handling, or cannot be assigned to an authorized owner.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"In a repository whose correctly constructed fixity-compliance proportion remains stable, persistent same-object recurrence, prolonged reduced redundancy, or correlated replica degradation will identify reproducible, preservation-relevant review cases that the aggregate rate and ordinary one-ticket-at-a-time handling do not distinguish.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four lanes were searched using direct phrasing, historical and synonymous fixity terminology, standards and products, and component combinations. Exactly four opened sources from four publishers were retained, including an official standard, a first-party product source, and primary research. The bounded search found adjacent components but no documented exact combination.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A preregistered, read-only reconstruction across twelve completed audit windows is finite and measurable. Manual validation of bounded flagged and unflagged samples can test whether recurrence, duration, and dependency patterns survive data harmonization and add distinctions beyond incident handling.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The proposal predicts that a valid stable aggregate can coexist with reproducible, consequential object-level trajectories and that a predeclared gate will produce treatment-relevant distinctions beyond ordinary ticket handling. Both coexistence and incremental distinction can fail empirically.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The first step uses approved operational metadata read-only, makes no preservation-object or infrastructure changes, and routes interpretation to designated human authorities. Explicit halts cover identity-join failure, audit-regime discontinuity, restricted-content exposure, and conflicts with authenticity or retention duties.","source_ids":["SRC1"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The sources establish object-linked temporal fixity records, prior-error histories, heterogeneous institutional error handling, latent faults, repair latency, and replica dependence. They make hidden trajectory risk plausible and observable, although none directly demonstrates the proposal's exact stable-aggregate/recurrent-subgroup coexistence; therefore the evidence is partial rather than conclusive.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Object-level fixity failures and histories are operationally visible, and preservation reliability depends on detection speed, repair, and replica independence. Existing sources do not directly document that recurrent or cohort-clustered degradation was concealed beneath a valid stable repository-wide pass rate, so the central problem is supported indirectly and remains an empirical question for the proposed repository analysis.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P035","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained source combined repair-delay and replica-dependence stress tests with stable aggregate compliance, object trajectories, cohort decomposition, and a human-review gate.","queries":["digital preservation fixity checks repair logs storage cohorts correlated failures","long-term digital storage latent faults repair delay replica independence fixity"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No exact documented implementation of a trajectory gate beneath a stable repository-wide fixity-compliance indicator was found.","queries":["digital preservation stable fixity rate recurring failures repair object history repository","digital preservation fixity audit repeated failures reduced redundancy trajectories"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["PREMIS official fixity check event outcome history digital object preservation metadata","fixity monitoring history failed digital preservation repository object"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":"Searching older and adjacent terms such as data scrubbing, latent faults, checksum mismatch, previous error, provenance, and replica independence found component practices but not the full contrastive design.","queries":["digital preservation fixity failure history object repair dashboard","data scrubbing latent faults repair replica independence long-term digital storage"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["PREMIS models preservation Events with dates, outcomes, outcome details, and links to Objects.","Fixity-check failures can be retained as actionable permanent event records.","PREMIS represents authorization and restrictions relevant to preservation acts."],"publisher":"Library of Congress, PREMIS Editorial Committee","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata, Version 3.0","url":"https://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v3/premis-3-0-final.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Archivematica exposes fixity status and dated history for individual AIPs, including previous errors.","Its Fixity application can perform batch checking across the AIP store."],"publisher":"Archivematica","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Fixity — Archivematica Storage Service Documentation","url":"https://www.archivematica.org/en/docs/storage-service-0.15/fixity/"},{"claims_supported":["The 2025 NDSA survey is a longitudinal study of organizational fixity practices using 89 completed responses.","Reported practices vary, and responses to fixity errors include confirmation, troubleshooting, and replacement from a known-good copy."],"publisher":"National Digital Stewardship Alliance","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"2025 NDSA Fixity Survey Report Published","url":"https://www.ndsa.org/2026/04/30/2025-ndsa-fixity-survey-report-published.html"},{"claims_supported":["A reliability model for long-term digital storage identifies rapid latent-fault detection, faster automated repair, and greater replica independence as important reliability strategies.","The model supports bounded stress testing of repair delay, fault detection, and replica dependence."],"publisher":"arXiv","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"A Fresh Look at the Reliability of Long-term Digital Storage","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0508130"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen establishes neither world novelty nor patentability. It found adjacent standards, products, surveys, and reliability research covering object-linked fixity histories, failure response, repair timing, and replica independence, but no retained source documenting the complete stable-macro/object-trajectory crosswalk, cohort decomposition, predeclared excursion gate, and governed human review. A phrase miss is not novelty evidence, and the screen makes no claim about market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}