{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Fohrmann et al. (2026), intraindividual running-economy and biomechanical differences across advanced footwear models","overlap":"Within-subject shoe testing jointly analyzed running economy and biomechanics; no shoe was superior at group level, while athlete–shoe interactions and intraindividual running-economy differences remained visible.","remaining_difference":"It did not retain a formal group-equivalence procurement claim while applying predeclared, repeatability-based compatibility alerts, comfort evidence, quality flags, and pairing-level human decisions.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Brund et al. (2025), responder definitions for footwear effects on running economy","overlap":"Directly warns that group averages can cancel individual differences, compares predeclared responder definitions, and shows why multiple trials are needed to distinguish consistent from inconsistent responses.","remaining_difference":"It classifies metabolic responders for research analysis rather than integrating biomechanical and comfort excursions into a dual-level procurement and compatibility-review workflow.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"RUN-CAT comfort assessment and existing individualized footwear-recommendation practice","overlap":"RUN-CAT supplies repeatable, model-discriminating athlete comfort measures, while a professional survey shows that comfort, injury history, biomechanics, and individual advice already influence real-world footwear recommendations.","remaining_difference":"Neither source anchors individual review to a simultaneously retained group running-economy equivalence result or specifies a crosswalk, excursion-routing rule, and recomputed aggregate view after local decisions.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified as a useful decision distinction if matched repeat trials show no reproducible athlete–model excursions beyond measurement error, reviewers cannot agree which predeclared patterns warrant compatibility review, or baseline materials already produce the same pairing decisions without the dual-level display.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Relative to responder analyses, comfort tools, and individualized fitting practice, the remaining testable claim is that presenting a valid group running-economy equivalence result together with quality-controlled, repeatable within-athlete biomechanical and comfort contrasts will change only specific athlete–model review decisions while preserving the procurement-level aggregate conclusion.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four complementary lanes covered the direct level-of-analysis problem, responder and historical terminology, existing recommendation practice, and combinations of running economy, biomechanics, comfort, and repeatability. Four opened sources span Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Elsevier and are all primary research.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A retrospective and then shadow comparison using existing trials is bounded and measurable. SRC1 identifies suitable within-athlete biomechanical/physiological contrasts, SRC2 supports repeated trials and predeclared response thresholds, SRC3 supplies comfort reliability benchmarks, and SRC4 identifies relevant human reviewer groups.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The sources establish the component ideas but not the proposed dual-level decision rule: retain aggregate equivalence, expose repeatable pairing-level heterogeneity, and route only affected pairings to human review. Decision differences, reproducibility, reviewer agreement, and preservation of the aggregate conclusion are observable outcomes.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized first step is retrospective, access-controlled, and non-operative; it cannot assign shoes, diagnose injury, alter procurement, or override symptoms or clinical restrictions. Human review also accords with the professional roles documented in SRC4. Privacy, synchronization, symptom, and clinical-conflict halt conditions are explicit.","source_ids":["SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"SRC1 observed no group-level running-economy difference among footwear conditions while identifying athlete–shoe interactions; SRC2 explicitly reports that group averages can cancel individual responses. SRC3 and SRC4 show that comfort is individually variable and consequential in footwear assessment. Actual misuse of group equivalence by procurement staff was not directly documented, so support is partial rather than complete.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The level-of-analysis hazard is empirically visible: group footwear results can be null or equivalent while repeatable individual metabolic, biomechanical, and comfort responses differ. The searched evidence does not directly demonstrate that equipment staff routinely convert such group results into universal athlete-level assignments.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P057","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["running economy footwear within-subject individual response smallest worthwhile change repeated measures","running shoe individual response running economy biomechanics comfort repeated trials athlete model pairing","group averages individual differences running footwear biomechanics comfort"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["running shoes group mean running economy individual responses footwear biomechanics individual variability study","footwear running economy equivalence individual responders shoe athlete interaction biomechanics","group averages could cancel out individual differences running footwear"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":"World Athletics shoe-control rules were found but address competition eligibility and customization approval rather than the proposed laboratory evidence display or procurement decision boundary.","queries":["standard footwear testing protocol running economy biomechanics comfort athlete World Athletics","professional footwear recommendations runners biomechanical assessment comfort symptoms individual shoe selection study","World Athletics athletic shoe regulations medical customization"],"source_ids":["SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["individualized running shoe selection comfort filter preferred movement path","running footwear responders nonresponders metabolic cost repeated trials","individualized footwear recommendation gait analysis pronation comfort"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["No significant group-level running-economy differences were detected across tested advanced-footwear models.","Within-subject analysis identified athlete–shoe interactions and biomechanical factors associated with intraindividual running-economy differences.","A within-subject approach is needed to study the range of individual footwear responses."],"publisher":"Springer Nature (Sports Medicine - Open)","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Biomechanical Factors Associated with Intraindividual Differences in Running Economy Across Advanced Footwear Technology Models in Long-Distance Runners","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13004771/"},{"claims_supported":["Group averages can cancel individual footwear responses.","Predefined response thresholds and multiple trials help distinguish consistent responses from biological or technical variation.","The study compared responder definitions using repeated running-economy trials in three shoe conditions."],"publisher":"Taylor & Francis (Footwear Science)","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Defining responders to altered running footwear based on measures of running economy","url":"https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19424280.2024.2415080"},{"claims_supported":["RUN-CAT measures athlete-reported heel cushioning, forefoot cushioning, stability, flexibility, and overall comfort.","The tool showed good-to-excellent within-day and between-day reliability and quantified measurement and meaningful-difference thresholds.","Comfort scores could discriminate among footwear models."],"publisher":"Taylor & Francis (Journal of Sports Sciences)","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"The running shoe comfort assessment tool (RUN-CAT): Development and evaluation of a new multi-item assessment tool for evaluating the comfort of running footwear","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341979140_The_running_shoe_comfort_assessment_tool_RUN-CAT_Development_and_evaluation_of_a_new_multi-item_assessment_tool_for_evaluating_the_comfort_of_running_footwear"},{"claims_supported":["Podiatrists, physiotherapists, footwear retailers, and coaches already provide individualized footwear recommendations.","Comfort and injury considerations are prominent, but recommendation beliefs and practices vary materially by professional group.","There is no consensus for determining an individual's optimal injury-prevention shoe, and evidence-based individualized guidance remains limited."],"publisher":"Elsevier (Physical Therapy in Sport)","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Footwear recommendations for Runners: Influencing factors and professional perspectives","url":"https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/b42b82ee-1844-4ae2-bc71-38bff2aa8e4d/content"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source screen finds adjacent prior art for every major component but no opened source implementing the complete dual-level procurement-and-pairing review. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unsearched patents, proprietary team laboratories, manufacturer systems, and local procurement procedures may contain a closer match."}