{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Reading Behind the Lines: Ghost Texts and Spectral Imaging in the Manuscripts of Alfred Tennyson","overlap":"Directly applies calibrated, noncontact multispectral imaging, reflectance spectroscopy, raking light, transillumination, and image processing to modern literary manuscripts; recovers obscured revisions, distinguishes writing materials and authorial marks from printing artifacts, infers revision order, and connects recovered layers to editing, composition, and literary form.","remaining_difference":"It does not preregister competing continuity-versus-rupture accounts, classify gradual revision versus threshold recomposition versus production shock or successor work across a manuscript-to-proof sequence, or test classification accuracy with blinded assessors and a withheld dated witness.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"An Encoding Model for Genetic Editions","overlap":"Defines document- and dossier-level reconstruction of writing acts, revision campaigns, relative chronology, alternative interpretations, uncertainty, physical stratification, and relationships among multiple witnesses rather than treating manuscripts as flat texts.","remaining_difference":"It is a representational and editorial model, not a conservator-controlled material-measurement protocol or an empirical test of whether physical evidence improves literary-form regime judgments.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"How can different writing initiatives be distinguished?","overlap":"Treats reconstruction of writing stages, corrections, scribes, and chronological sequence as a central problem and recommends combining palaeography with nondestructive ink analysis to verify or falsify visually derived accounts.","remaining_difference":"It does not target modern literary-form continuity and rupture, manuscript-to-print production shocks, successor-work decisions, or blinded comparative performance.","source_ids":["SRC3"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim fails if blinded critics and a production historian given the added material measurements are no more accurate, consistent, or calibrated than with baseline evidence when ordering independently dated layers, discriminating authorial revision from production intervention, classifying continuity versus rupture, or predicting the withheld witness; it also fails if any apparent gain depends on unsafe exposure, unrecorded interpretive assumptions, or a result withdrawn by the conservator or custodian.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Beyond already-demonstrated spectral recovery and genetic-stage representation, a preregistered, conservator-controlled manuscript-to-proof workflow may improve blinded, withheld-witness performance in distinguishing gradual accumulation, threshold recomposition, external production shock, and successor-work replacement while explicitly preserving rival chronologies, uncertainty, provenance, and condition constraints.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, genetic-editing and historical terminology, institutional imaging and conservation practice, and combinations of layer recovery, sequence reconstruction, raking/transmitted light, spectroscopy, and literary interpretation. Four opened sources from four publishers include primary research and official guidance.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A pilot limited to six leaves, two proof states, one withheld dated witness, four assessors, calibrated exposures, and pre/post condition checks is operationally bounded. The imaging methods and stage-discrimination task are demonstrated, although access, instrument clearance, and dose limits remain repository-specific.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Despite extensive methodological overlap, the incremental claim is measurable: compare blinded ordering, mechanism classification, calibration, and withheld-witness prediction before and after material measurements under a preregistered continuity-rupture framework.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"UV and other illumination can damage paper, so conservator control and exposure limits are mandatory; however, the proposed noncontact, dose-bounded pilot, immediate halt criteria, custodian permissions, and prohibition on treatment or public reclassification address the evident stop conditions. No source indicates that all such permissioned examinations must be prohibited.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Primary research recovered Tennyson variants absent from prior editions, exposed revision stages invisible under ordinary viewing, and distinguished possible authorial annotation from printing artifacts. TEI guidance separately identifies how text-oriented encoding can blur physical writing acts and reconstructed textual states, while material-analysis guidance says visual examination alone can require scientific verification.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible: ordinary viewing, conventional digitization, and text-focused representation can omit or conflate physically distinct revisions. Published spectral work has recovered unreadable cancellations, clarified revision order and formal development, and prevented attribution of printing artifacts to an author. The evidence supports the existence of consequential hidden strata, though not the proposal's broader claim that literary histories commonly misclassify whole change regimes.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P109","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["manuscript material stratigraphy raking light reflectance transformation imaging overwritten erased writing","literary manuscripts multispectral imaging genetic criticism erased revisions layer sequence"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["multispectral imaging literary manuscripts revisions proofs genetic edition","literary genetic criticism material analysis multispectral imaging manuscript revisions chronology"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["cultural heritage manuscript noncontact imaging illumination standards conservation","site:loc.gov preservation hyperspectral imaging manuscripts erased hidden overwriting safe conservation lighting","site:tei-c.org genetic encoding manuscript revisions stages changes guidelines"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["literary manuscripts multispectral imaging genetic criticism erased revisions layer sequence","literary genetic criticism material analysis multispectral imaging manuscript revisions chronology","site:tei-c.org genetic encoding manuscript revisions stages changes guidelines"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Multispectral imaging and processing recovered previously unreadable Tennyson variants and revision stages absent from prior editions.","Noncontact MSI, FORS, raking light, and transillumination can distinguish inks, reveal overwritten text, and provide evidence about revision order and literary form.","Material analysis can distinguish authorial annotation from printing artifacts, while repository and estate permissions govern examination and publication."],"publisher":"Oxford University Press, The Review of English Studies","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Reading Behind the Lines: Ghost Texts and Spectral Imaging in the Manuscripts of Alfred Tennyson","url":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgaf007"},{"claims_supported":["Genetic editions reconstruct writing processes within and across manuscripts, including revision campaigns, chronology, document relationships, uncertainty, and alternatives.","Text-focused encoding can blur the distinction between physical writing acts and interpreted textual states.","Physical stratification, writing material changes, dossier-level relations, and editorial decisions can be represented explicitly."],"publisher":"Text Encoding Initiative Consortium","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"An Encoding Model for Genetic Editions","url":"https://tei-c.org/Vault/TC/tcw19.html"},{"claims_supported":["Visual palaeographic examination can be insufficient for reconstructing writing initiatives and chronological sequence.","Nondestructive material analysis of inks can verify, falsify, or expand visually derived conclusions and help distinguish scribes or writing stages."],"publisher":"University of Hamburg, Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"How can different writing initiatives be distinguished?","url":"https://www.csmc.uni-hamburg.de/profiling-guide/research-questions/q05.html"},{"claims_supported":["Infrared or ultraviolet examination can reveal faded ink, but imaging is technically and conservationally complicated.","Ultraviolet light damages paper, inks, and human tissue; conservator involvement and limited light exposure are necessary.","Light damage is irreversible, supporting dose limits and condition-based termination."],"publisher":"Library of Congress","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Paper Preservation FAQ","url":"https://www.loc.gov/preservation/about/faqs/paper.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found substantial direct and component-level prior art, especially the 2025 Tennyson study. It does not establish exhaustive world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, or realized scholarly value. The potentially differentiating boundary is the explicit continuity-rupture mechanism classifier and its preregistered blinded, withheld-witness evaluation—not noncontact manuscript imaging, material-stage reconstruction, genetic representation, or conservation-controlled access themselves."}