{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"NCSC CourTools balanced court-performance measures","overlap":"Pairs aggregate clearance rate with time-to-disposition, age-of-active-pending-caseload, case-type comparisons, time standards, continuance assessment, and case-file reliability. It expressly treats clearance, timeliness, and pending-case age as complementary management measures.","remaining_difference":"The retained page does not specify persistent subgroup-excursion tests, minimum-cell and uncertainty rules, language-accommodation pathways, a stratified microcase panel, or an alert restricted to administrative workflow review.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"SSA OHO/OARO public hearings-and-appeals workload reporting","overlap":"For benefits appeals, reports hearing-office receipts, completions, pending requests, hearing wait time, total processing time, hearing format, and office rankings, thereby exposing local variation beneath national workload totals.","remaining_difference":"The reports emphasize office averages and rankings rather than case-age quantiles, unresolved trajectories, persistent pathway thresholds, lawful-pause adjustments, sampled validation, or conditional workflow-review alerts.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"GAO assessment of SSA appeals timeliness metrics and case transfers","overlap":"Documents wide office-level variation in benefits-appeal processing time, shows how attribution across transferred cases can distort office performance, and recommends more accurate office-specific timeliness metrics for evaluating workflow changes.","remaining_difference":"It addresses transfer attribution and system limitations, not the proposal's complete macro-balance-plus-pathway-excursion governance rule, language-access cuts, representative file panel, or displacement guardrail.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"King County Superior Court data dashboard","overlap":"Operationally combines filings, dispositions, active pending caseload, disposition age, and pending-case age, permits filtering by location and case type, and excludes enumerated suspended periods from age calculations.","remaining_difference":"It is a general-court descriptive dashboard updated annually, not a benefits-appeals protocol with repeated excursion alerts, procedural-risk indicators, sampled file review, or mandatory bounded administrative response.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim would be falsified if adjusted twelve-month data show no persistent, adequately supported pathway clustering; sampled files show that alerts mainly reflect lawful priority, requested continuances, complexity, accommodation work, miscoding, or transient noise; or a prospective alert produces no actionable workflow distinction or improvement while degrading aggregate balance or shifting delay elsewhere.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Beyond established paired clearance, timeliness, pending-age, and office-level reporting, a benefits tribunal can improve governance by predeclaring operational pathways and persistence, minimum-cell, uncertainty, lawful-pause, and procedural-risk rules; validating excursions with a privacy-protected stratified file sample; and routing only supported patterns to non-merits administrative review while continuously checking aggregate stability and delay displacement.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four search lanes covered the direct benefits-appeals problem, caseflow and older terminology, operational dashboards and performance measures, and combinations involving clearance, pending age, office variation, thresholds, and file review. Exactly four opened sources from NCSC, SSA, GAO, and King County were retained.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A twelve-month read-only audit, preregistered exclusions and minimum-cell rules, and a 60-file stratified review are finite and reversible. Existing agency and court reporting demonstrates that receipts, dispositions, pending inventory, processing time, office, case type, and suspended-time concepts are administratively measurable, although local field quality must be checked before any 90-day alert.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The broad idea of pairing clearance with timeliness and pending-age measures substantially overlaps established practice, but the narrowed contrast—persistent operational-pathway excursions validated by sampled files and triggering only administrative review while aggregate stability remains monitored—is explicit and falsifiable.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized first step is read-only and de-identified, leaves merits and remedies to judges, preserves lawful priority and accommodations, applies minimum-cell/privacy controls, and has stated halt and rollback conditions. Existing sources demonstrate administrative performance measurement without requiring automated merits decisions. Local privacy and records review remains mandatory but is not an obvious categorical stop.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Benefits-appeal evidence shows large processing-time differences among hearing offices and a timeliness metric that misattributes transferred-case time. Court guidance and implementations independently show why clearance, pending age, disposition time, location, case type, and lawful inactive periods must be examined together. The exact conjunction of stable statewide balance with a persistent language-access or other pathway tail was not directly demonstrated.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The general problem is visible: aggregate or average workload measures can be incomplete or incorrectly attributed, while office- and case-type-level processing differences are operationally material. GAO found wide office variation in SSA disability-appeal processing and inadequate office-specific transfer metrics; SSA already publishes office-level receipts, completions, pending counts, waits, and processing times; and court systems pair flow measures with pending-age and disposition-time views. Evidence is only partial for the proposal's specific state-tribunal, stable-equilibrium, long-tail, and language-accommodation scenario.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P070","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["stable clearance rate hidden long pending cases court backlog tail delay subgroup","site:gao.gov SSA disability appeals hearing office processing time variation backlog report","court caseflow dashboard alerts age thresholds pending cases administrative review workflow"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["benefits appeals tribunal dashboard pending caseload case age clearance rate language access","site:ssa.gov appeals hearing office average processing time workload data dashboard","state office administrative hearings annual report timeliness benefits appeals language interpreter delays"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:ncsc.org backlog dashboard case age threshold drill down court location case type file review","tribunal performance dashboard caseload clearance time percentile office pathway","court caseflow management clearance rate age of active pending caseload time to disposition CourTools"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["differentiated case management court case age reports exception reports stalled cases","court caseflow management clearance rate age of active pending caseload time to disposition CourTools","administrative appeals case processing time percentile pending cases dashboard"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Clearance rate is outgoing cases divided by incoming cases and may be examined by case type.","Time to disposition and age of active pending caseload are complementary to clearance rate.","Pending-case inventories should identify cases approaching or exceeding time standards.","Appellate clearance, disposition time, pending age, and file integrity are established court-management measures."],"publisher":"National Center for State Courts","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"CourTools","url":"https://www.ncsc.org/our-centers-projects/courtools"},{"claims_supported":["SSA benefits-appeal workload data are reported by hearing office.","Published indicators include receipts, completions, pending requests, average hearing wait, total processing time, hearing format, and office rankings.","Appeals Council reporting includes receipts, dispositions, pending reviews, and remand activity."],"publisher":"Social Security Administration","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"OARO and OHO Public Workload Data Files","url":"https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/publicusefiles.html"},{"claims_supported":["SSA disability-appeal processing times and pending caseloads grew substantially during the examined period.","Processing times varied widely across hearing offices.","SSA's average-processing-time metric misattributed transferred-case time and could not accurately assess individual-office contributions.","GAO recommended more accurate office-specific timeliness metrics and evaluation of workflow-system limitations."],"publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"SSA Disability Programs: Better Metrics and Evaluation Needed to Inform Decision-Making","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-677t"},{"claims_supported":["An operating court dashboard jointly presents filings, dispositions, pending caseload, disposition age, and pending-case age.","Users can filter results by location, month, case type, and cause of action.","Age calculations exclude specified suspended periods, illustrating adjustment for pauses outside ordinary processing."],"publisher":"King County Superior Court Clerk's Office","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Data Dashboard","url":"https://kingcounty.gov/es-es/dept/dja/courts-jails-legal-system/case-records/records-access/reports-data/data-dashboard"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found substantial collision with established court-performance measurement, benefits-appeal workload reporting, local dashboarding, and office-specific timeliness assessment. It did not establish whether the narrowed alert-and-validation combination exists elsewhere. The result cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}