{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Modified DECSAR methodology for library electronic-resource troubleshooting","overlap":"Defines an iterative library workflow that identifies and examines a problem, considers possible causes and solutions, implements a response, reviews results, and documents the resolution. It also recommends recreation, elimination, backtracking, and analysis of reports against initial assumptions.","remaining_difference":"It does not prescribe a zero-result-specific rival-explanation matrix, a materially-better-or-tie decision rule, explicit confidence-linked authority limits, or revision triggers attached to one discriminating probe.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Google SRE effective-troubleshooting model","overlap":"Starts from a recorded problem and telemetry, generates possible causes, seeks confirming or disconfirming evidence, uses controlled tests that distinguish hypotheses, records investigations, considers test risk, and restores pre-test configuration.","remaining_difference":"It is generic systems guidance rather than an operational library-discovery protocol, and it does not require the proposed scored matrix, unresolved-tie state, librarian role boundaries, or retrieval-specific candidate set.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"Known-item zero-hit classification and Primo zero-result analytics","overlap":"The research classifies multiple causes of zero-hit known-item searches, including an item being held but the query being incorrect or metadata being incomplete; the product records query, view, scope, field, search type, and pre-filter information for zero-result searches.","remaining_difference":"These sources support failure analysis and detection but do not establish case-level comparison of competing hidden causes, provisional selection, explicit defeasibility, or a reversible probe selected to discriminate between leading explanations.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified if, on the same de-identified historical traces, reviewers using the protocol do not select probes that better distinguish the ultimately supported causes, or do not revise explanations more consistently, than reviewers using the existing workflow; it would also collapse as a prior-art distinction if an established library-discovery workflow is found that already requires rival scoring, ties, authority limits, revision triggers, and discriminating probes.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For operational library-discovery zero-result cases, requiring an explicit scored rival set, a best-so-far-or-tie decision, confidence-linked action limits, revision triggers, and one reversible discriminating probe will improve probe discrimination and explanation revision consistency beyond zero-result reporting, predefined query remedies, generic metadata review, and ordinary troubleshooting documentation.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the exact proposal title and intervention language, zero-result and older no-hits terminology, vendor analytics and standards-oriented terms, library troubleshooting practices, and combinations involving case records, rival causes, disconfirmation, metadata, indexing, and filters. Four opened sources span four publishers and include primary research, first-party product documentation, professional literature, and official first-party guidance. The exact-title miss was not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A read-only retrospective test can use 12 de-identified cases spanning metadata, query, indexing, interface-state, access, and unresolved outcomes. Reviewers blinded to later resolution can receive identical original-time traces under protocol and comparison conditions; selected probes and revision triggers can then be scored against later evidence without changing catalog or production systems.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Prior art establishes zero-hit categorization, trace reporting, iterative library troubleshooting, hypothesis testing, documentation, and controlled disconfirmation. The narrower combination of mandatory case-level rival scoring, an explicit tie state, authority-limited provisional action, and retrieval-specific revision triggers remains distinguishable and permits a controlled reviewer comparison.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"Product analytics may contain signed-in, location, and user-group dimensions, confirming a privacy concern, while troubleshooting guidance recognizes test side effects and restoration of pre-test state. The proposed next test is de-identified and read-only, and the protocol reserves record, index, interface, collection, and access changes for existing authorities. No retained source reveals an unavoidable safety or authority stop for that bounded exercise.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Primary research observed zero-hit known-item searches arising from materially different conditions, including held items paired with erroneous queries and incomplete metadata. Primo separately records scope, view, field, search type, and pre-filter state, while library troubleshooting literature describes numerous possible causes and warns that initial assumptions can misdirect diagnosis. The structural problem is therefore visible.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Zero-result discovery failures are observable and heterogeneous: a known item may be held but missed because of query formulation or metadata, while interface scope, field, search mode, and pre-filter state supply additional plausible explanations. Existing library troubleshooting guidance recognizes multiple causes, iterative testing, and the need to examine assumptions, but the retained sources do not show the complete proposed case-level selection protocol.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P058","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained library-specific source combined a scored explanation matrix, explicit unresolved ties, authority limits, revision triggers, and a disconfirming probe; generic systems guidance contained many of those components, so this is only a bounded difference, not evidence of world novelty.","queries":["\"zero-result\" \"root cause\" library discovery workflow","library discovery troubleshooting workflow decision tree metadata index query filters","library discovery \"case record\" \"revision triggers\" zero results","library search troubleshooting \"disconfirming\" probe metadata indexing"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact proposal-title query produced no relevant direct match; that phrase miss was not treated as novelty evidence.","queries":["\"Zero-Result Explanation Cases for Library Discovery\"","library discovery \"zero results\" troubleshooting query metadata indexing filters","library \"zero result\" \"possible causes\" \"test\" discovery","library discovery \"troubleshooting methodology\" competing causes"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":"Vendor and standards-oriented searches found zero-result analytics, search-status distinctions, discovery transparency material, and troubleshooting practices, but no retained standard requiring case-level abductive selection.","queries":["Primo zero result searches analytics report Ex Libris","NISO discovery troubleshooting zero results metadata indexing standard","Search Statuses Non-surrogate Diagnostics Zero Results Z39.50","library discovery \"troubleshooting methodology\" competing causes"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["library catalog \"no hits\" search failure vocabulary mismatch metadata","library discovery troubleshooting workflow decision tree metadata index query filters","library search failure incident case log hypothesis test discovery service","library catalog no-hits search transaction logs subject headings"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["An original sample of 708 known-item queries was analyzed in a discovery system.","Zero-hit cases had multiple categories, including an item being held but the query being incorrect, an item not being held, incomplete or erroneous metadata, and an ambiguous query.","The study supports the visibility and heterogeneity of the zero-result problem but emphasizes classification and system remedies rather than operational rival selection."],"publisher":"searchstudies.org; preprint of The Journal of Academic Librarianship article","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Known-item searches resulting in zero hits: Considerations for discovery systems","url":"https://searchstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pre-print_Behnert_Lewandowski_2017_Known-items-69091.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Primo provides a Zero Result Searches subject area for reporting searches with no results.","Recorded fields include search string, view, scope, scope type, resource-type pre-filter, search type, field searched, and user-related dimensions.","The product detects and describes failures but does not document comparison of rival causal explanations."],"publisher":"Ex Libris, part of Clarivate","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Primo Zero Result Searches","url":"https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/Analytics/040Primo_Analytics_Subject_Areas/Primo_Zero_Result_Searches"},{"claims_supported":["Modified DECSAR is recommended for library electronic-resource troubleshooting and includes defining and examining the problem, considering causes and solutions, implementing, reviewing, communicating, and documenting.","Diagnosis techniques include recreation, elimination, backtracking, and half-splitting.","Analysis of problem reports can reveal workflow gaps and evaluate initial assumptions, while the literature still reports a need for standardized issue terminology."],"publisher":"American Library Association, Library Technology Reports","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","title":"Chapter 4. Methods of Diagnosis","url":"https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/7901/10989"},{"claims_supported":["Effective troubleshooting is framed as iterative hypothesis generation and testing from observations, telemetry, logs, and system knowledge.","Guidance recommends looking for confirming or disconfirming evidence and choosing tests that can distinguish groups of hypotheses.","It recommends searchable issue records, clear test notes, attention to side effects and risk, and restoration of pre-test configuration."],"publisher":"Google","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Effective Troubleshooting","url":"https://sre.google/sre-book/effective-troubleshooting/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent domain and component prior art but no opened source implementing the complete proposed library-discovery protocol. That result cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or absence of relevant material in patents, paywalled literature, local procedures, vendor knowledge bases, or terminology not reached by these queries."}