{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Established full-size functional and construction courtroom mock-ups","overlap":"DLR Group describes physical, full-size courtroom mock-ups used during design to measure sightlines and reach ranges, refine spatial parameters before repeated rooms are built, gather stakeholder feedback, and reduce costly later changes. Construction mock-ups also establish approved finishes and systems as benchmarks.","remaining_difference":"The source does not describe a representative-material mock room instrumented with calibrated acoustic sources and microphones to map both intelligibility and confidential-speech leakage, followed by threshold-triggered physical correction and matched postconstruction backtesting.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"GSA/Arup preconstruction courtroom auralization and virtual design testing","overlap":"The reported pilot tested soon-to-be-constructed courtrooms, varied configurations and sound-absorbing treatments, improved predicted reverberation and speech intelligibility, and combined acoustic work with virtual checking of sightlines, lighting, and finishes. It also reports that full-scale physical courtroom mock-ups were then a GSA-project requirement.","remaining_difference":"The acoustic consequences were modeled and auditioned virtually; the article expressly says conventional physical mock-ups did not assess acoustics. It therefore lacks the proposal's direct measurements through a full-scale representative material assembly, confidential-zone leakage map, integrated physical sightline test, and frozen mock-up-to-completed-room calibration trace.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},{"name":"U.S. Access Board accessible-courthouse design guidance","overlap":"Official guidance identifies recurring late-considered accessibility designs that compromise courtroom sightlines or require expensive alterations, requires attention to accessible participant positions, and recognizes both confidential communication and assistive-listening privacy concerns.","remaining_difference":"It supplies design and access requirements rather than an instrumented physical prediction, correction, commitment-gate, and postconstruction validation protocol.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining contrast would be falsified by a credible preexisting practice or direct source showing that, before fixed courtroom procurement, teams already use a full-scale representative-material bay with calibrated speech sources, microphones, and eye-point targets to measure intelligibility, protected-zone leakage, and sightlines; make threshold-triggered physical corrections and retest them; withhold release pending disposition; and later compare frozen predictions with matched completed-room measurements. Experimentally, it would also fail if blinded repeated comparisons show no predictive advantage over ordinary drawing-and-specification review beyond instrument uncertainty.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Relative to the retained prior art, the testable remainder is the integrated physical workflow: calibrated acoustic and sightline measurement in an adjustable, representative-material, full-scale courtroom before fixed orders; simultaneous treatment of audibility, confidential-speech leakage, and accessible visual access; prespecified physical correction and retesting; a construction-release gate; and matched postconstruction forecast-error backtesting. The distinction is not merely using a courtroom mock-up or performing digital acoustic simulation.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four search lanes covered direct intervention terms, life-size/model-courtroom terminology, official guidance and industry practice, and combinations of mock-ups with acoustics, privacy, sightlines, commissioning, and measurement. Exactly four opened direct sources from four publisher contexts were retained, including two official federal sources. No phrase miss was treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A temporary non-operational bay with deliberately varied configurations, frozen locations and thresholds, calibrated standardized signals, repeated measurements, bounded corrections, and no case information can test repeatability and immediate sensitivity. A later matched commissioning comparison is separable follow-up evidence rather than a prerequisite for safely running the first phase.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Physical courtroom mock-ups and preconstruction acoustic optimization are already documented, but the retained sources do not disclose their integration into the proposal's representative-material, calibrated intelligibility-plus-leakage-plus-sightline protocol with a release gate and postconstruction prediction backtest. That remainder has measurable outcomes and explicit falsifiers.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized first step is non-live, excludes protected case information and participant evaluation, preserves judicial and facilities authority, and includes calibration, physical-safety, invalidity, and rollback stops. Accessibility remains an independent requirement rather than something instruments may waive.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Official accessibility guidance reports that late consideration can compromise courtroom sightlines and make later alteration expensive, while the GSA pilot found material preconstruction acoustic defects in proposed courtroom geometry and treatment. These sources make the problem visible, although they do not establish its population frequency or total remediation burden.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is partly visible: official guidance documents recurring sightline and access failures caused by late design consideration, and a reported federal pilot found proposed courtroom geometry and surfaces that produced undesirable reverberation and impaired speech intelligibility before construction. The retained evidence does not quantify how often completed hearing rooms suffer the full combined pattern of inaudibility, confidential-speech leakage, obstructed access, and costly correction.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P064","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"The bounded results revealed close component combinations but no retained source describing the entire physical, calibrated, gated, and backtested workflow. This absence is only a bounded-search result, not novelty evidence.","queries":["courtroom mockup speech intelligibility","courtroom mock-up acoustic measurements preconstruction","full-scale courtroom mock-up acoustics sightlines","courtroom acoustic testing privacy sightlines commissioning"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["courtroom full scale mock-up acoustic testing sightlines design construction","courthouse design mockup courtroom acoustics speech intelligibility confidential speech","courtroom mock-up acoustic measurements preconstruction","site:uscourts.gov courtroom mock-up acoustic sightlines"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["U.S. Courts Design Guide courtroom mock-up acoustic performance","GSA courthouse courtroom mockup requirement full scale acoustic","courtroom acoustic commissioning standards speech privacy sightlines accessibility","site:access-board.gov designing accessible courthouses sightlines acoustics privacy"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["life-size courtroom design model testing functionality","model courtroom designed and tested before construction","functional courtroom mock-up design review","courtroom auralization preconstruction sound testing"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Physical full-size functional courtroom mock-ups are an established design practice.","Such mock-ups permit participant interaction and measurement of sightlines and reach ranges before construction.","Refining one courtroom's spatial parameters before repetitive construction can reduce later changes and costs.","Construction mock-ups can establish approved finishes and integrated systems as benchmarks."],"publisher":"DLR Group","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","title":"Virtual Design Communication for the Courthouse","url":"https://www.dlrgroup.com/idea/nichols-courthouse-virtual-design/"},{"claims_supported":["GSA commissioned preconstruction auralization of planned federal courtrooms to improve speech intelligibility, background noise, and reverberation.","The design team varied configurations and absorptive treatments, identifying a curved wall and front wall as acoustic problems and reducing modeled reverberation time.","The project combined acoustic optimization with virtual sightline, lighting, and finish review.","The article reports full-scale physical courtroom mock-ups as a GSA-project requirement at the time, while stating that conventional physical mock-ups did not assess acoustics."],"publisher":"Building Design+Construction","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","title":"GSA Goes Virtual With Courtroom Design","url":"https://www.bdcnetwork.com/home/article/55144437/gsa-goes-virtual-with-courtroom-design"},{"claims_supported":["The U.S. Courts Design Guide establishes federal Judiciary requirements for court-facility design, construction, and renovation.","The guide is intended for judges, architects, engineers, GSA personnel, and court administrators and incorporates standards, policy, industry practices, and lessons learned.","The official framework confirms that facilities testing cannot supersede governing judicial and building requirements."],"publisher":"Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"U.S. Courts Design Guide","url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/us-courts-design-guide"},{"claims_supported":["Accessible courthouse design works best when access is considered at project outset and people with disabilities are involved.","Late consideration of witness-stand access can compromise sightlines and circulation.","Courtroom designs frequently fail to integrate court-reporter positions, sightlines, and wheelchair access.","Courtroom assistive-listening choices implicate confidentiality because some signals pass through walls.","Accessibility and confidential communication impose independent design constraints."],"publisher":"U.S. Access Board","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Designing Accessible Courthouses","url":"https://www.access-board.gov/ada/additional-resources/designing-accessible-courthouses.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found established physical courtroom mock-ups and closely adjacent preconstruction acoustic and virtual-design testing, but no retained direct source for the proposal's complete integrated protocol. That result cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, routine feasibility, or realized value; additional patent, procurement, project-record, standards, and expert searches could reveal closer practice."}