{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"COPTR/The Postal Museum workflow for responding to integrity errors","overlap":"A case workflow receives automated integrity reports, logs reports and outcomes, asks whether an error has an obvious intentional cause, compares against the last clean report, considers alternate copies, and verifies restored content before deleting failed content.","remaining_difference":"It does not require an explicit set of competing object histories, comparative ranking with defeasibility status, a preservation-safe authority matrix, or selection of a read-only probe that discriminates the leading explanation from its nearest rival.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"NDSA fixity guidance","overlap":"Establishes scheduled fixity auditing, logging, replica comparison, repair planning, provenance documentation, and use of fixity patterns to diagnose systemic or human error.","remaining_difference":"It generally proceeds from mismatch detection toward diagnosis or identification of a correct copy; it does not specify a case-level abductive dossier that preserves rival histories and withholds authoritative-copy selection until a discriminating probe is completed.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"PREMIS Data Dictionary 3.0","overlap":"Provides standardized structures for fixity information, preservation events, detailed outcomes, error-log pointers, linked objects, agent roles such as authorizer and validator, and restrictions on authorized preservation actions.","remaining_difference":"PREMIS can encode much of the proposed dossier but does not prescribe rival generation, explanatory-fit comparison, provisional ranking, revision triggers, or which read-only probe should be performed next.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Archivematica Storage Service fixity workflow","overlap":"Validates AIP manifests, records success or failure and error output, retains fixity-check history, and directs a user to retrieve and investigate an AIP after an anomalous byte count.","remaining_difference":"The product detects and records anomalies but does not implement mandatory comparison of storage, manifest, transformation, synchronization, configuration, and unauthorized-alteration histories or confidence-dependent authority limits.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"Using the same pre-resolution traces, the claim is falsified if reviewers following an existing integrity-error workflow configured with PREMIS records produce equally or more discriminating read-only probes, equally clear limits on replica and manifest actions, and equally consistent explanation revisions than dossier reviewers, or if existing workflows already require the proposed rival-ranking and revision process.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Beyond fixity detection, event logging, provenance metadata, and repair workflows, a required case-level comparison of multiple plausible object histories—with an unresolved or provisional status, explicit preservation and authority limits, and one read-only probe chosen to distinguish the leading accounts—may improve investigation decisions before any replica or manifest is changed.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, fixity and bit-integrity terminology, a documented institutional error-response workflow, PREMIS standards, and a deployed repository product. All four retained sources were opened; they represent four publishers and include official guidance, an official standard, and first-party documentation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"Eight closed, non-sensitive historical cases form a bounded retrospective test. Reviewers can be blinded to resolutions, given only immutable pre-resolution traces, and scored against documented histories for probe discrimination, ranking revision, and prohibited-action compliance without touching repositories or packages.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The proposal makes a contrastive process claim: mandatory rival-history ranking plus a discriminating read-only probe and action limits should outperform existing detection, logging, and integrity-error workflows on probe quality and revision consistency. Existing sources establish the comparator components but not that combined requirement.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The proposed first step is read-only and preserves access controls and original traces. The historical-case test authorizes no repository or package changes. PREMIS also provides agent-role and rights/restriction structures compatible with explicit authorization boundaries. Fragile-media read strain remains a procedural hazard, but the proposed isolated-copy or historical-trace test avoids an obvious stop.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"NDSA describes fixity evidence as limited, calls for repair processes, and notes that checks can surface operator or system problems. The Postal Museum workflow distinguishes intentional actions from other errors, while Archivematica reports a failure and directs the user to investigate what changed. These directly show that a mismatch requires interpretation and response rather than supplying a unique cause.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible: checksum and manifest checks detect unexpected change but do not uniquely identify its history. Published guidance and operational workflows recognize multiple contexts, require investigation or cause assessment, and maintain logs or prior clean reports. However, the retained sources do not show a required case-level matrix that ranks all credible histories before repair or escalation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P054","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["archival storage checksum discrepancy root cause analysis provenance replicas","\"fixity failure\" \"root cause\" preservation","PREMIS fixity check failure event outcome detail checksum mismatch preservation metadata"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["\"fixity\" anomaly checksum mismatch investigation digital preservation","\"checksum mismatch\" \"digital preservation\" investigation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["digital preservation fixity failure response checksum mismatch replicas manifest","fixity audit error report repair digital preservation standard","site:loc.gov/standards/premis preservation event fixity check failure outcome detail"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["digital repository data integrity incident response fixity mismatch forensic investigation","digital preservation checksum mismatch investigate provenance replica","site:dpconline.org fixity check failure investigate checksum mismatch cause"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Fixity evidence establishes bit-level identity but is not sufficient for preservation.","Logging, scheduled audits, replica comparison, repair processes, provenance documentation, and diagnosis of systemic or human error are recognized practices.","Fixity checking can consume storage and infrastructure resources."],"publisher":"National Digital Stewardship Alliance","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Checking Your Digital Content: What Is Fixity, and When Should I Be Checking It?","url":"https://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ndsa/working_groups/documents/NDSA-Fixity-Guidance-Report-final100214.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["A documented institutional workflow logs integrity reports and outcomes.","An integrity error can result from an intentional archival action rather than corruption.","The workflow checks the last clean report and verifies restored content before deleting failed content."],"publisher":"Community Owned digital Preservation Tool Registry / The Postal Museum","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","title":"Workflow: Responding to Integrity Errors","url":"https://coptr.digipres.org/Workflow%3AResponding_to_integrity_errors"},{"claims_supported":["PREMIS defines event outcomes and detailed outcome descriptions, including error-log pointers.","PREMIS links events to objects and agents and supports roles including authorizer and validator.","PREMIS rights structures can represent permitted actions and restrictions."],"publisher":"Library of Congress, PREMIS Editorial Committee","source_id":"SRC3","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 validates AIP contents against checksums and payload oxum.","It records success or failure, error output, timestamps, and fixity-check history.","After an anomalous byte count, documentation directs the user to retrieve and investigate the AIP to determine what changed."],"publisher":"Archivematica / Artefactual Systems","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Fixity — Archivematica Storage Service Documentation","url":"https://www.archivematica.org/en/docs/storage-service-0.24/fixity/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This four-source, public-web screen found adjacent standards, guidance, products, and an institutional workflow, but no retained source prescribing the complete proposed combination. The result supports only coarse researchability and a bounded contrastive test; it does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}