{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"T.S. Eliot among the Metaphysicals","overlap":"Reconstructs publishing, educational, and critical reception to challenge exaggerated attribution of the Metaphysical revival to Eliot, directly matching the proposal's focal-critic-versus-distributed-reception problem.","remaining_difference":"The thesis does not advertise a reusable actor–structure matrix, stage-specific contribution taxonomy, or paired tests of advocate substitution and structural change.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"The Revival of Metaphysical Poetry, 1872–1912","overlap":"Uses dated editions, criticism, reviews, and earlier advocates to show that a revival commonly associated with Grierson and Eliot was already underway and that a landmark edition was both cause and result of prior interest.","remaining_difference":"It reconstructs an earlier revival phase but does not perform explicit matched actor-substitution and institutional-condition counterfactuals.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Wallace Stevens and Literary Canons","overlap":"Traces one poet's canonization through critics, anthologies, textbooks, publishers, pedagogy, awards, and other institutions rather than treating reputation as the product of an isolated individual.","remaining_difference":"The described study does not separate focal-actor choices from positional access through reciprocal, assumption-labeled counterfactual probes.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Towards a Counterfactual Criticism: Alternate History and the Study of English Literature","overlap":"Establishes conscious counterfactual reflection as a legitimate critical tool for canonical literature and classroom inquiry.","remaining_difference":"Its counterfactuals concern literary interpretation and pedagogy, not evidence-constrained substitution of advocates and structural conditions in a reception pathway.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified if a prior study or the bounded pilot already linked advocacy acts to institutional selections, distinguished personal choice from positional access, and showed that matched advocate-substitution and structural-change probes add no discrimination among critic-led, inherited-advocacy, and institution-led explanations—or if the dated evidence supports no action-to-adoption path at all.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For one poet, interval, and reception pathway, a versioned map may add a testable layer beyond existing reception and canonization studies by requiring dated action-to-institution evidence, explicit stage roles, and reciprocal, assumption-labeled tests of both advocate substitution and structural change, without adjudicating literary merit or rightful canon status.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the exact proposal phrase, direct revival-attribution formulations, reception-history and canonization terminology, anthology/publishing/curricular practices, methodological guidance, process tracing, and literary counterfactual combinations. Four opened sources from four institutional or publishing contexts were retained; no retained source disclosed the full combination.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A five-year, one-work pilot ending after one traced anthology or course pathway, one matched advocate substitution, and one institutional-condition change is finite and auditable. The historical studies demonstrate that editions, reviews, educational records, and publishing-reception evidence can support such bounded reconstruction.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The surviving distinction is not reception mapping alone, which is established prior art, but whether adding explicit stage classification and paired advocate/structure counterfactuals changes the supported attribution. That can be tested against a chronology-only analysis and falsified by non-discrimination or absent transmission evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized first step is read-only scholarship using dated records, with explicit access, reproduction, privacy, causal-inference, and decision-authority limits. Restricted-source controls are ordinary and visible in the retained repository record; they require exclusion or authorized access rather than stopping the nonrestricted pilot.","source_ids":["SRC2"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The Metaphysical-poetry case directly documents a revival narrative that obscured earlier advocacy and exaggerated Eliot's responsibility, while the Stevens study documents canon formation through multiple critical, publishing, anthology, textbook, and pedagogical channels.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible in documented scholarship: Duncan reports that later celebrated critics obscured a nineteenth-century revival already expressed through editions and reviews, and Gray describes Eliot's responsibility for that revival as greatly exaggerated after reconstructing wider publishing, educational, and reception cultures. Newcomb independently shows that poetic canonization operates through distributed institutional channels.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P095","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No result located that combined evidence-linked reception process tracing with both matched advocate substitution and bounded structural-condition change.","queries":["\"actor substitution\" \"canon formation\" literary","\"structural counterfactual\" literary canon reception","\"process tracing\" \"canon formation\" literature","counterfactual literary history canon formation advocate substitution"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact phrase \"Canonical Revival Attribution Map\" produced no direct match; related case studies were assessed instead.","queries":["\"Canonical Revival Attribution Map\"","poet revival attributed to critic institutional canon formation reception history","critic credited with revival of poet reputation landmark essay","T. S. Eliot revival metaphysical poets canon earlier critics anthologies"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":"No formal disciplinary standard governing causal attribution in canon-revival histories was located; results documented methodological guidance and established anthology, textbook, publishing, archival, and reception-study practices.","queries":["MLA guidelines reception history archival research syllabi anthologies canon formation","literary reception study methodology standard bibliography reviews reprints anthologies","literary canon formation anthologies textbooks publishers academic pedagogy"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["literary revival critic canon formation anthologies syllabi reception history","critical resurrection poet case study canonization","revival of metaphysical poetry earlier phase Grierson Eliot","literary reputation reception history anthologies publishers curricula"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["A frequently repeated account placed the beginning of the Metaphysical revival with Grierson's edition and Eliot's later essays.","Earlier nineteenth-century criticism and interest preceded those landmarks.","Grierson's edition was both a contributor to later enthusiasm and a result of earlier interest."],"publisher":"Modern Language Association, hosted by Cambridge University Press","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"The Revival of Metaphysical Poetry, 1872–1912","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/pmla/article/abs/revival-of-metaphysical-poetry-18721912/802CD2CC1F190E8D70CF701519AA7B66"},{"claims_supported":["Eliot championed the Metaphysical poets, but his responsibility for their revival has been greatly exaggerated.","The study reconstructs transcontinental publishing and reception and examines class notes, textbooks, and Eliot's articles.","A nuanced account can distinguish Eliot's influence on later interpretation from initiation of the revival."],"publisher":"University of St Andrews","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"T.S. Eliot among the Metaphysicals","url":"https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/3123"},{"claims_supported":["A single-poet canonization study already traces mechanisms of literary evaluation across criticism and institutions.","Anthologies, textbooks, publishers, pedagogy, awards, and other cultural actors jointly shape canon formation.","Literary canonization is continually reconstituted rather than attributable to one isolated intervention."],"publisher":"University Press of Mississippi","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Wallace Stevens and Literary Canons","url":"https://www.upress.state.ms.us/Books/W/Wallace-Stevens-and-Literary-Canons"},{"claims_supported":["A refereed literary-studies article treats counterfactual reflection as a critical tool.","The method is proposed for reading canonical literature and for classroom use.","The source supports the counterfactual component but not causal attribution of reception pathways."],"publisher":"Taylor & Francis, deposited by the University of Glasgow","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Towards a Counterfactual Criticism: Alternate History and the Study of English Literature","url":"https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/303813/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This coarse public-web search found strong adjacent work on correcting focal-critic revival narratives, distributed institutional canonization, and counterfactual literary criticism, but no opened source combining all three with reciprocal matched probes. That bounded result does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or absence of closer work in books, archives, subscription databases, other languages, or unindexed scholarship."}