{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"US9620141B2, Speech intelligibility measurement and open space noise masking","overlap":"Discloses automated intelligibility measurements throughout the day using microphones at head level or near a listener, including multiple location-specific channels and changes over time.","remaining_difference":"It targets office sound masking, depends on injected test signals, and may automatically alter masking. It does not disclose adjudicative episode bindings, append-only corrections, dual event/record time, calibration-and-coverage lineage, or replayable evidentiary projections under judicial authority.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"IEC 60268-16/STIPA position-by-position measurement practice","overlap":"Measures a standardized non-speech test signal as received at multiple listening positions, covering the transmission path and permitting immediate remediation and standardized reporting.","remaining_difference":"It is principally a commissioning or survey procedure based on short, separately initiated measurements, not passive measurement during bounded hearing episodes or an append-only, rebuildable position-by-episode history.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"U.S. Courts Design Guide courtroom-acoustics criteria","overlap":"Treats high courtroom speech intelligibility as a primary requirement and specifies courtroom targets for reverberation, background noise, isolation, and STI with sound-system enhancement.","remaining_difference":"It establishes design criteria rather than a live or episode-aligned listener-position measurement ledger with sensor validity, corrections, temporal lineage, and disclosed coverage gaps.","source_ids":["SRC2"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would be falsified by prior art or an existing authorized court record that already preserves calibrated, listener-position, hearing-episode-aligned acoustic measurements as append-only events from which validity- and coverage-explicit views can be reproducibly rebuilt, or by a blinded bench test showing that central records predict every position-probe result within the declared tolerance.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Existing art supports position-specific intelligibility measurement, continuous near-listener monitoring, and courtroom STI requirements separately, but the retained sources do not show their combination as a minimized, append-only acoustic-access event record tied to adjudicative episodes and role positions, with dual time, calibration lineage, replayable projections, and explicit gaps while reserving remedies to lawful decision-makers.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, courtroom-audibility and speech-intelligibility terminology, official courtroom design/access practices, STIPA products and standards, and combinations involving continuous near-listener monitoring. Four opened sources span four publishers and include official, primary-research, first-party, and patent records.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A non-live, 20-episode mock-room trial with at most eight probes and 40 events is bounded and can directly measure calibration stability, blinded detection, false alarms, listener agreement, and deterministic replay. Established position-based STIPA practice and near-listener monitoring make the instrumentation premise testable.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The testable distinction is not seat-level acoustic measurement alone; it is reproducible reconstruction of episode- and position-specific conditions from minimized canonical events with calibration, validity, timing, and coverage lineage. The closest sources omit that adjudicative event-record combination.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The proposed first test is empty-room, scripted, non-live, read-only, and restricted to non-speech-reconstructing features; it neither records proceedings nor controls legal decisions. Official courtroom criteria and standardized injected-signal testing indicate that authorized acoustic bench assessment is practicable, subject to local facilities and court approval.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Official research found inconsistent audio quality and disconnections that impeded users' ability to follow or contribute to remote hearings, while the U.S. Courts Design Guide treats high intelligibility, controlled noise, reverberation, and sound distribution across courtroom roles as essential. This supports the audibility problem, although the retained evidence does not directly quantify cases where a complete transcript coexisted with a localized in-room failure.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible but only partly established at the proposal's full specificity. HMCTS's large evaluation reported inconsistent audio and disconnections affecting participation and following proceedings; official U.S. courtroom guidance recognizes spatial distribution, noise, reverberation, and intelligibility as material design requirements. No retained source directly demonstrates the claimed evidentiary gap between a complete central record and a failed signal at a particular physical seat during a specific episode.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P101","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["distributed acoustic sensors sound level monitoring event logging room seats","patent real time speech intelligibility monitoring microphone listener positions room","courtroom seat position speech intelligibility acoustic measurement audibility monitoring"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["courtroom audibility transcript juror could not hear testimony acoustics study","courtroom sound system inaudible participants official report hearing access","courtroom acoustic conditions empirical study speech intelligibility jury positions PDF"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["courtroom acoustics speech intelligibility measurement standard listener positions","courtroom assistive listening system sound check audibility official guidance","site:uscourts.gov courtroom acoustics speech intelligibility design guide PDF"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["courtroom speech intelligibility STI SII listener position measurement","speech transmission index courtroom acoustic survey","continuous intelligibility index measurement head level microphone"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Large official evaluation included 8,328 survey respondents and 180 interviews across court-user and professional groups.","One in five remote-hearing public users experienced technology issues; inconsistent audio and disconnections were leading problems that impeded following and contributing to hearings."],"publisher":"HM Courts & Tribunals Service","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Evaluation of remote hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic: Research report","url":"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b71ebd8fa8f5037b09c7b1/Evaluation_of_remote_hearings_v23.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["High intelligibility and natural-sounding speech are primary courtroom requirements.","Courtroom acoustics depend on background noise, room form, reverberation, isolation, and distribution of sound energy among the judge, jury, defendant, and attorneys.","The guide specifies courtroom STI 0.75 with sound-system enhancement."],"publisher":"Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"U.S. Courts Design Guide, Revised 2021","url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._courts_design_guide_2021.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["IEC 60268-16/STIPA assesses a standardized non-speech signal as it reaches each measurement position.","A complete room assessment ordinarily uses multiple short measurements at different positions and supports immediate remediation and standardized reporting.","The measurement can cover the complete microphone, environment, amplification, and room transmission path."],"publisher":"NTi Audio","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"STIPA Speech Intelligibility Measurement","url":"https://www.nti-audio.com/en/applications/evacuation-systems/speech-intelligibility-stipa/"},{"claims_supported":["Discloses automated intelligibility measurements throughout the day to track changes over time.","Places analyzers at head level or near persons so measurements reflect the sound received near a listener.","Discloses multiple location-specific microphones and responsive adjustment of masking outputs."],"publisher":"Google Patents","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OTHER","title":"US9620141B2: Speech intelligibility measurement and open space noise masking","url":"https://patents.google.com/patent/US9620141B2/en"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent art, not a demonstrated world-first. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, legal admissibility, or realized value; additional patent-family, standards, court-technology procurement, records-management, privacy, and jurisdiction-specific policy review would be required."}