{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Adaptable model-driven norm-enforcing administrative-law case-management tool","overlap":"Uses an event-based normative model to expose the current case state, applicable duties, actor powers, compliant actions, partial information, and an explainable history of state changes.","remaining_difference":"It does not model enforcement-triage variables as continuous, provenance-bearing trajectories constrained within legally created authority modes, and it does not test whether that hybrid representation improves within-mode priority ordering.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"ServiceNow Investigative Case Management","overlap":"Provides government investigation workspaces with incident and investigation timelines, linked evidence and entities, timestamps, custody/status changes, audit logs, supervisory use, and recommendations.","remaining_difference":"The documentation does not describe continuous harm, evidence-decay, remediation, and uncertainty trajectories or a rule that only sourced legal events may change the set of permissible actions.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"OECD risk-focused, proportionate enforcement framework","overlap":"Combines risk-based targeting and prioritization with legislation-defined powers, clear procedures, transparent criteria, bounded discretion, current information, and proportional enforcement responses.","remaining_difference":"It supplies governance principles rather than a case-level hybrid ledger that explicitly separates continuous priority information from discrete authority-changing transitions.","source_ids":["SRC2"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified by an earlier system or documented practice that already represents record-supported harm, evidence, remediation, and uncertainty as continuous trajectories inside discrete, source-cited legal authority modes, permits those trajectories to reorder review only within the current mode's lawful actions, and audits boundary reconstruction; it would also be undermined if the proposed blinded review shows no improvement over existing records or shows that gains depend on unsupported interpolation or unstable legal boundaries.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For enforcement triage, model-form selection itself may add value: keep gradual, record-supported case conditions continuous only within explicitly bounded authority modes, allow only sourced legally operative events to change those modes, and test whether this representation improves reconstruction and permissible priority ordering without implying new authority.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered direct formulations, adaptive/dynamic case-management and event-calculus terminology, government investigative products, official enforcement guidance, and combinations of normative state, continuous indicators, event timelines, and prioritization. Four opened sources from four publishers were retained; none disclosed the full claimed combination.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed 40-case retrospective review is finite, uses closed cases and existing authorized records, masks outcomes, records unresolved boundaries instead of imputing them, compares specified reconstruction and triage measures, prohibits deployment or reopening, and ends with a documented decision.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The candidate can be contrasted with stage-only, continuous-score, and threshold systems by measuring authority-state agreement, detection of material within-stage change, lawful within-mode priority ordering, explanation quality, missing-data burden, and reconstruction time.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"No categorical stop is apparent for the retrospective shadow review because outputs cannot change cases or authority, while legal and data-governance approval, existing access controls, source-linked rules, explicit gaps, and halt conditions address the principal risks. Operational use would require separate authorization.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Official evidence shows real enforcement prioritization, changing risk and priority designations, documentation and fairness deficiencies, and the need to combine risk-proportionality with legally bounded discretion. Administrative-law research separately reports that manually tracking changing norms can cause errors and delay. Evidence does not directly establish that stage-only displays specifically hide continuous trajectories across agencies, so support is partial.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The underlying representation problem is visible but not fully demonstrated. GAO documented an enforcement collection system whose cases are prioritized for different actions and found inadequate documentation, evaluation, and fairness controls, including a need to document risk and priority changes over time. OECD guidance requires current information and risk-proportionate enforcement while keeping powers, procedures, and discretion legally clear and bounded. Administrative-law case-management research reports errors and delays from manual tracking of norms and models state-dependent powers and actions. No retained source directly measures whether coarse workflow stages conceal within-stage harm, remediation, evidence-decay, or uncertainty trajectories.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P132","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["case handling workflow continuous variables discrete events legal compliance","administrative law case management dynamic workflow legal events risk score research","continuous compliance calculated event log layers"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No opened result described the exact enforcement-case combination of continuous trajectories bounded by source-cited legal authority transitions.","queries":["enforcement case management continuous risk score procedural events authority state timeline","regulatory enforcement case management stages case risk assessment changing circumstances evidence deterioration","hybrid discrete continuous model legal case management enforcement workflow"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["dynamic case management milestones events continuous indicators public sector investigation software","site:oecd.org regulatory enforcement inspections risk assessment dynamic changing risk case prioritization","site:gao.gov enforcement case management system risk prioritization cases stages delays"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["adaptive case management legal norms event timeline risk indicators","dynamic case management regulatory enforcement risk score legal authority","event calculus administrative law case management powers duties"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["IRS ACS used a multistep automated process to prioritize collection-enforcement cases and choose actions.","GAO found insufficiently documented objectives, fairness criteria, prioritization processes, and periodic evaluation.","GAO recommended documentation of inventory, risk, and priority designations and their changes over time."],"publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"IRS Case Selection: Automated Collection System Lacks Key Internal Controls Needed to Ensure the Program Fulfills Its Mission","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-744"},{"claims_supported":["Enforcement targeting and decisions should be risk-based and proportionate.","Risk-based discretion must be allowed by legislation and governed by clear criteria.","Enforcement powers, procedures, rights, and discretion should be transparent and bounded, with adequate current information systems."],"publisher":"Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Risk focus and proportionality: OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit","url":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-regulatory-enforcement-and-inspections-toolkit_9789264303959-en/full-report/component-7.html"},{"claims_supported":["The product supports government investigative and regulatory-violation cases.","It provides incident and investigation event timelines, linked evidence and entities, timestamps, status-change tracking, audit logs, and recommendations.","Its published documentation does not state the proposal's continuous-trajectory and legal-mode boundary rule."],"publisher":"ServiceNow","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Exploring Investigative Case Management","url":"https://www.servicenow.com/docs/r/government-industry/psds-explore-inv-case-management.html?contentId=6IesTTq1sTeQXgeW5UAAyA"},{"claims_supported":["The research implements a model-driven administrative-law case-management tool using eFLINT normative reasoning.","The model exposes current duties, powers, permissible actions, partial information, state changes, and explanations.","Its numeric facts and event-driven normative states are adjacent components, but it does not implement continuous enforcement trajectories bounded within authority modes."],"publisher":"arXiv / authors affiliated with the University of Amsterdam","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Managing Administrative Law Cases using an Adaptable Model-driven Norm-enforcing Tool","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24822"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This coarse, bounded public-web screen found adjacent governance guidance, investigative products, and normative case-management research, but no close match implementing the complete contrastive configuration. That result does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or absence of undisclosed, proprietary, non-indexed, foreign-language, or differently characterized prior art."}