{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Agency Structure Attribution Balance","overlap":"Near-complete conceptual collision: fixes the outcome and horizon; separates focal actors from positions and structures; inventories distributed actors; classifies causal roles; traces evidence across scales; tests actor substitution and structural relaxation; audits narrative focality; preserves alternative models, uncertainty, and responsibility boundaries.","remaining_difference":"The proposal specializes this architecture for challenged-library-material cases by defining physical, catalog, consortium, and licensed-access transitions, library-specific records, and a read-only three-case operating protocol.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Library reconsideration committee and appeal workflows","overlap":"Existing guidance and practice already distribute challenge handling among patrons, staff committees, directors, governing boards, policies, and timed appeals rather than treating the director as the sole decision-maker.","remaining_difference":"These workflows prescribe or document review authority but do not causally attribute individual access-state transitions, distinguish office powers from occupant choices, audit public focality, or test actor and structural counterfactuals.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},{"name":"Empirical case study of school-board decision-making during a book challenge","overlap":"The case study examines how governance relationships and competing priorities affected operation of a codified book-challenge policy, demonstrating that formal procedure need not be self-executing.","remaining_difference":"It is a retrospective single-case governance study, not a reusable access-state ledger joining local and shared-platform implementation evidence or systematically testing focal-director attribution.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining distinction is falsified if an existing reconsideration record or method already links each physical and digital access-state transition to dated actions, actor and office authority, procedural and technical constraints, narrative visibility, bounded actor substitutions, structural probes, competing causal models, and responsibility limits—or if applying those additions to three closed cases yields no explanatory discrimination beyond the final recorded vote or decision.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"What remains is a narrower, falsifiable domain implementation claim: a library-specific, versioned ledger joining reconsideration governance records to physical, local-catalog, consortium, and licensed-access transitions can distinguish the director's evidenced choices from office authority and distributed review, board, patron, staff, procedural, and platform mechanisms more effectively than existing reconsideration workflows or generic contribution-analysis architecture alone.","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, current and older reconsideration terminology, operational policies and guidance, empirical book-challenge research, causal contribution/process-tracing concepts, leader-attribution bias, and component combinations. Four opened sources span four publishers and include official guidance, an official operating practice, and primary research. The search was sufficient for a coarse collision screen, not an exhaustive prior-art review.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A read-only comparison of three closed cases is limited in scope and has observable workflow milestones. The first checkpoint should verify case closure and whether timestamped implementation and access-state histories exist before counterfactual analysis; failure to connect distinguishable actions or conditions to state transitions is an explicit stopping result.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Despite substantial collision with the generic architecture, the library-domain increment is testable: compare the ledger's actor/office and cross-platform transition findings against a conventional policy file, decision record, and catalog history, then determine whether it changes any supported causal classification or governance recommendation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized step is retrospective and read-only, and the proposal reserves policy, legal interpretation, access changes, and responsibility judgments to their proper authorities. ALA guidance flags local-law, meeting-privacy, and participant-anonymity considerations; the local request workflow also contains patron identifiers, so redaction and custody controls are necessary but not an obvious stop for closed public-record cases.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Official guidance and practice show that reconsideration outcomes pass through patrons, staff committees, directors, boards, policies, communications, and appeals. Primary research further reports that trust and competing board priorities can mitigate codified challenge policy. This supports a distributed governance problem, though the retained evidence does not directly establish director-centered public narration or catalog/vendor implementation divergence in the proposed three cases.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is partly visible: challenged-material governance is demonstrably multi-actor and staged, and empirical evidence indicates that relationships and priorities can alter how codified policy operates. The stronger allegations—systematic public over-attribution to directors and divergence among physical, catalog, consortium, and vendor access states—were not directly demonstrated by the retained sources.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P072","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["\"causal attribution\" \"process tracing\" governance actors structures contribution analysis","\"contribution analysis\" theory of change alternative explanations causal attribution","\"focal actor\" causal attribution governance narrative visibility","person versus position causal attribution institutional office holder process tracing","leadership attribution bias organizational outcomes leader visibility causal attribution"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact-title query produced no retained exact match, but a differently titled source disclosed a near-complete match to the proposal's underlying architecture; exact-phrase failure therefore did not support novelty.","queries":["\"Challenged-Material Access Attribution Ledger\"","library challenged materials reconsideration process interim access catalog status implementation board committee director","public library reconsideration case timeline director committee board catalog access","library book challenge director decision reconsideration committee board vote removed catalog records"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["ALA reconsideration challenged materials procedures director board committee access","library materials reconsideration procedure challenged book remains available during review policy","library reconsideration tracking log challenged materials decisions public log","official library management system item record audit trail status history catalog changes"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["library \"questioned materials\" procedure committee director board","library \"complaint about library resources\" access committee board director","library \"request for reevaluation\" challenged materials policy","library censorship challenge decision implementation consortium vendor catalog access"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["The generic Agency Structure Attribution Balance architecture already contains nearly all proposed structural elements and mechanisms.","It distinguishes actor choices from positions and constraints, classifies causal roles, uses cross-scale process tracing, tests actor substitution and structural changes, audits focality, retains alternative models, and separates contribution from blame or liability."],"publisher":"The Encyclopedia of Abstractions","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OTHER","title":"Agency Structure Attribution Balance","url":"https://abstractopedia.org/archetypes/agency_structure_attribution_balance/"},{"claims_supported":["Professional reconsideration guidance assigns distinct roles to committees, directors, administrators, and governing bodies.","It recommends that challenged material remain available during review, preserves majority and minority views, and flags local-law, meeting-privacy, and participant-anonymity constraints."],"publisher":"American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Reconsideration Committees","url":"https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/committees"},{"claims_supported":["An operating public-library workflow uses a staff task force and reconsideration committee, followed by appeals to the director and then the board.","The workflow exposes staged authority and defined response and appeal periods, while its request form contains patron-identifying fields requiring records controls."],"publisher":"Salt Lake County Library","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Reconsideration","url":"https://www.slcolibrary.org/information/forms/reconsideration"},{"claims_supported":["A 2026 empirical case study examines decision-making during a completed library book challenge.","The abstract reports evidence that superintendent-board trust and competing budget priorities could mitigate codified book-challenge policy, supporting inquiry beyond a self-executing-policy account."],"publisher":"SAGE Publications, International Journal of Educational Reform","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Who Moved the Penguins? A Case Study of School Board Decision-Making During a Library Book Challenge","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10567879261436424"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded screen found a substantial conceptual collision and therefore does not support a novelty inference. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unsearched patents, local records, vendor documentation, archival practices, and non-indexed literature may further narrow or eliminate the remaining library-specific distinction."}