{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Wirén and Ek, Annotation Guideline No. 7 (revised)","overlap":"A hierarchical literary-annotation scheme jointly represents narrative voice, focalization, narrator discourse, character discourse, embedded transmission, speakers, and addressees. A voice change resets focalization and lower annotation layers, closely anticipating the proposal's source-regime reset.","remaining_difference":"Its focalization layer uses mutually exclusive categorical types rather than continuous, dimension-specific traces of epistemic access, certainty, and alignment; it does not compare representations by their effect on evidence admissibility for fixed reliability claims.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Brei et al., Classifying Unreliable Narrators with Large Language Models","overlap":"Operationalizes unreliable narration through expert human annotation and separates intra-narrational, inter-narrational, and inter-textual unreliability tasks.","remaining_difference":"It classifies unreliability rather than maintaining passage-level source resets plus continuous within-source modulation for human claim adjudication.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Hicke et al., Says Who? Effective Zero-Shot Annotation of Focalization","overlap":"Treats focalization as restriction of narrative information based on narrator knowledge and reports that trained annotators can disagree on excerpt labels.","remaining_difference":"It assigns focalization labels to excerpts and evaluates classifiers; it does not integrate source-changing events, continuous certainty/alignment traces, competing boundary placements, or evidence-admissibility audits.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"TEI P5 q element","overlap":"Provides standard markup for quoted, spoken, thought, written, and authorially distanced material, with source, responsibility, certainty, and speaker-attribution attributes.","remaining_difference":"It supplies encoding primitives rather than a narratological transition protocol, continuous within-source measurements, or a comparative adjudication test.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim is falsified if, across the fixed 24-passage pilot and 12 claims, the hybrid representation exposes no consequential cross-source aggregation or false-discreteness error beyond the categorical and smoothed rivals, while adding unsupported boundaries, unstable traces, order-sensitive adjudications, or materially greater burden.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Relative to hierarchical categorical narrative annotation, unreliable-narrator classification, and excerpt-level focalization labels, explicit source-attribution resets combined with continuous within-source traces may make a distinct class of evidentiary aggregation errors inspectable and may change which passages are admissible for fixed reliability claims.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, older narratological terms, annotation tools and standards, and combinations of voice, focalization, reliability, quotation attribution, certainty, and reset rules. Four opened sources span four publishers and include primary research plus an official scholarly-encoding standard. The exact-phrase miss was not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed pilot is bounded to one public-domain novel, 24 preselected passages, two annotators, three representations, and 12 fixed claims. Its recorded outcomes directly test missed switches, invented boundaries, disagreement, burden, cross-boundary interpolation, and changed evidence admissibility, which are salient in prior annotation work.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The nearest scheme already combines voice, focalization, discourse layers, embeddings, and resets, but uses categorical focalization. The proposal retains a falsifiable difference: continuous access, certainty, and alignment traces within reset-bounded source regimes, evaluated by their effect on evidence admissibility.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized action is a reversible, non-public methodological pilot on public-domain text. It disclaims canonical interpretation, automated adjudication, ranking, publication, and assessment use; it preserves prose notes and discards derived states if ambiguity, inconsistency, or unsupported precision dominates. Documented focalization disagreement reinforces the appropriateness of these stops rather than creating an absolute stop.","source_ids":["SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Prior work separately demonstrates the need to distinguish narrators, speakers, embedded transmission, quotation sources, focalization, and unreliability, and shows that focalization labels can remain interpretively disputed. The specific downstream effect of granularity on admissible evidence is not yet demonstrated, but the underlying attribution and ambiguity problem is visible.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The core problem is partly supported: existing schemes explicitly separate narrative voice, focalization, narrator and character discourse, embedded quotations, and speaker attribution; one hierarchical scheme even resets lower layers when voice changes. Reliability and focalization annotation are documented as difficult and disagreement-prone. The retained sources do not directly establish that wrong granularity changes adjudication of fixed literary claims, so that consequence remains for the pilot.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P125","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["narrative voice reset focalization annotation certainty alignment","narrator reliability computational annotation corpus certainty knowledge alignment literary","narrative source attribution annotation continuous discrete focalization shifts","narrator source boundaries continuous epistemic access certainty evaluative alignment"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact proposal phrase returned no integrated match; this phrase miss was treated only as a bounded-search result, not as evidence of novelty.","queries":["\"hybrid narrative-source trace\" reliability adjudication","narrative annotation narrator reliability focalization annotation scheme source shifts quotation embedded narrator"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["TEI quotation speaker narrative annotation standard source attribution literary text","CATMA literary annotation narrative levels disagreement annotators project","narrative annotation tool focalization narrator voice SANTA CATMA"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["narrative levels annotation guidelines narrator embedded narrative quotation frame","\"discrete\" \"continuous\" narrator focalization annotation","narrator epistemic stance certainty evaluation literary narratives","frame narrative embedded narrator focalization voice annotation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["A hierarchical annotation scheme combines voice, focalization, narrator discourse, character discourse, embedded narrative transmission, speakers, and addressees.","Changing voice resets focalization and lower layers.","Focalization is represented through mutually exclusive unrestricted, internal, and external categories rather than continuous traces."],"publisher":"Journal of Cultural Analytics","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Annotation Guideline No. 7 (revised): Guidelines for annotation of narrative structure","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357077158_Annotation_Guideline_No_7_revised_Guidelines_for_annotation_of_narrative_structure"},{"claims_supported":["TUNa is an expert human-annotated dataset addressing unreliable narrators across literature and other narrative domains.","The work distinguishes intra-narrational, inter-narrational, and inter-textual unreliability and reports the task as challenging."],"publisher":"Association for Computational Linguistics","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Classifying Unreliable Narrators with Large Language Models","url":"https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.1013/"},{"claims_supported":["Focalization concerns restriction or control of narrative information according to narrator knowledge.","Focalization is interpretive, and trained annotators frequently disagree on excerpt labels."],"publisher":"Association for Computers and the Humanities","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Says Who? Effective Zero-Shot Annotation of Focalization","url":"https://anthology.ach.org/volumes/vol0003/says-who-effective-zero-shot-annotation-of/"},{"claims_supported":["TEI provides markup for quoted material including speech, thought, writing, and authorial distance.","The q element supports source, responsibility, certainty, and speaker-attribution metadata.","These are general encoding primitives, not a reliability-adjudication protocol."],"publisher":"TEI Consortium","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"TEI P5 Guidelines: q (quoted) element","url":"https://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-q.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent prior art but cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value. The surviving claim is limited to the untested combination and comparative effect described above."}