{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Outcome-aligned curriculum mapping and program-level assessment redesign","overlap":"Maps learning outcomes to content and assessment, exposes gaps and redundancies, clarifies expectations, and seeks to reduce assessment burden and staff workload.","remaining_difference":"Does not reconstruct a successful predecessor's focusing constraints, require dossiers for individual coverage additions, impose cumulative launch budgets, stage deferred coverage into rotating modules, or require a reversible mock qualifying examination.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},{"name":"English Ph.D. comprehensive-examination reading-list contract","overlap":"Uses an examiner-approved reading list as an explicit contract defining the examinee's scope of responsibility, with specified exam sections, questions, timing, administration, and evaluation responsibilities.","remaining_difference":"Controls an operating examination rather than governing expansion from a bounded pilot; it lacks constraint-memory records, coverage-admission criteria, cumulative workload budgets, release tiers, and a pre-replacement mock gate.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Assessment-workload mapping","overlap":"Operationalizes workload through quantity, difficulty, redundancy, assessment variety, clarity, and distribution, supporting program-level review of reading load and high-stakes assessments.","remaining_difference":"Does not distinguish core literary-theory competencies from optional coverage, evaluate additions individually, govern examiner calibration, or preserve a predecessor examination as fallback.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Prospective curriculum-change and transition policy","overlap":"Assigns curriculum authority, requires effective dates and advance communication, preserves existing requirements for enrolled students unless higher approval is obtained, and permits students to opt into new requirements.","remaining_difference":"Provides authority and cohort-transition safeguards but no mechanism for competency contracting, coverage triage, workload budgeting, staged modules, or mock-exam validation.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim would be falsified if independent faculty panels cannot classify proposed additions consistently under the dossier fields, or if the compact produces substantially the same required coverage, prerequisite depth, preparation load, advising demand, and scoring conflicts as ordinary reading-list revision or examiner norming while adding administrative work.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Conditional on a bounded predecessor examination having succeeded while generating deferred coverage requests, explicitly preserving its useful constraint functions and staging new coverage may maintain a distinguishable competency core better than reading-list reduction or examiner norming alone. The retained sources establish adjacent components, not this combined structural effect or any effect size.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four web-search lanes covered the proposal directly, historical exam terminology, operating examination practices and institutional policies, and combinations involving curriculum mapping, workload, alignment, transition, and scorer reliability. Four retained sources were opened; they span four publishers and include official university guidance, official policy, and peer-reviewed research. Phrase misses were not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed 24-requirement paper audit, independent classification, provisional workload calculation, two representative prompts, and double scoring of three anonymized responses is finite, read-only, measurable, and reversible. It directly tests scope definition, workload transparency, and scoring operability before changing an examination.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The claim distinguishes the complete compact from outcome mapping, workload review, a signed reading-list contract, examiner norming, and transition policy. Classification agreement, total workload, prerequisite depth, scoring divergence, and fallback viability provide observable failure criteria.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The first step uses existing documents and anonymized responses without changing student conditions. The stated committee and director roles are compatible with the general institutional pattern that academic units control graduate requirements subject to approvals, effective dates, notice, and protections for already-enrolled students. Local policy verification would still be required before adoption.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The underlying problem is visible: program-level mapping guidance identifies unclear expectations, redundancy, misalignment, assessment burden, and staff workload, while research documents high reading loads, clustered assessments, and high-stakes-exam burden. English comprehensive-exam rules also show that reading-list scope, committee coordination, scheduling, and progression are operationally consequential. The proposal's exact local history of a successful pilot releasing a backlog of coverage requests is not independently documented, so support is partial.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"PARTLY SUPPORTED: independent sources substantiate the general risks of incoherent outcome-to-assessment mapping, redundant coverage, opaque workload, high reading loads, staff burden, and consequential examination administration. They do not independently establish the proposal's specific observable state or the claimed pilot-to-successor accumulation process in this literature program.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P065","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["curriculum mapping workload budget assessment design scope creep higher education","assessment blueprint content limits workload pilot testing scoring calibration official standard","official guidance assessment redesign pilot test scoring rubric inter-rater reliability higher education"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["literary theory qualifying exam redesign reading list workload competency assessment faculty calibration","graduate literature comprehensive examination reading list reduction theory qualifying exam","qualifying exam assessment rubric examiner calibration graduate literature program"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["graduate program assessment standards qualifying comprehensive exams learning outcomes workload","university curriculum change transition current students grandfather requirements policy","assessment blueprint content limits workload pilot testing scoring calibration official standard"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["comprehensive exam redesign English department graduate reading list","qualifying examination reform literature department reading list","doctoral comprehensive examinations redesign humanities assessment"],"source_ids":["SRC1"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["An English Ph.D. program can treat the finalized reading list as a signed contract defining the scope of knowledge for which the student is responsible.","Exam scope is coupled to committee question writing, DGS administration, fixed scheduling, evaluation, retake rules, and progression to candidacy."],"publisher":"Ohio University","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"English Ph.D. Comprehensive Examination","url":"https://www.ohio.edu/cas/english/graduate/phd/ph-d-comprehensive-examination"},{"claims_supported":["Curriculum mapping links program learning outcomes to content and assessment.","Mapping is presented as a way to identify gaps, redundancies, unclear expectations, misalignment, assessment burden, and teacher workload during program redesign."],"publisher":"The University of Sydney","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Guide to curriculum mapping: A systematic process for program redesign","url":"https://educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching%40sydney/curriculum-mapping-for-program-redesign/"},{"claims_supported":["A scoping review and document analysis identify quantity, difficulty, redundancy, variety, clarity, and distribution as dimensions of assessment workload.","The document analysis found high reading loads, clustered assessment, and multiple high-stakes examinations, supporting program-level workload mapping and transparent expectations."],"publisher":"Wiley / Tilburg University Research Portal","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Clarifying the unseen: Assessment workload and time expectations for students in higher education","url":"https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/clarifying-the-unseen-assessment-workload-and-time-expectations-f/"},{"claims_supported":["Academic units have authority over graduate requirements subject to institutional approvals and effective-date rules.","Students ordinarily follow requirements in effect when they entered the plan; units may offer an opt-in to new requirements but cannot mandate them for enrolled students without specified approval.","Requirement changes require advance communication and should support timely progression."],"publisher":"University of Minnesota","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"Academic Unit Authority over the Curriculum and Major","url":"https://policy.umn.edu/education/curriculumauthority"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent practices for examination scope contracts, outcome and assessment mapping, workload analysis, and protected curriculum transitions, but no retained source implementing their full combination as the proposed predecessor-constraint inventory, coverage-admission dossier, cumulative complexity budget, staged module register, mock-examination gate, and retained fallback. That result does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}