{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Controlled experiment on paratextual framing and reader response","overlap":"A 225-participant experiment manipulated book-like paratext and measured effects on literary-quality judgments, reflection, transportation, identification, inference effort, and reading time. It directly supports controlled previewing of reader-level consequences from alternative paratexts.","remaining_difference":"It was explanatory research, not a critical-edition production workflow: it did not forecast contextual comprehension or interpretive foreclosure by readership stratum, impose an uncertainty-based release gate, prescribe traceable editorial adjustments, or backtest predictions after publication.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"LEMDO annotation guidance for intended readership and interpretive openness","overlap":"The guidance treats annotations as critical paratext, tailors them to an edition's intended readership, identifies supplying necessary context as a purpose, and explicitly warns against locking down a single interpretation. It also distinguishes annotation types and print versus online placement.","remaining_difference":"It provides editorial principles and encoding practices rather than reader-panel experiments, preregistered outcome coding, predictive uncertainty, threshold-triggered revision, a binding production decision, or forecast-error calibration.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"User-requirements research for digital scholarly editions","overlap":"A survey based on analysis of 242 projects and 218 complete user responses derives practical recommendations for creators and funders of digital editions, establishing reader-informed edition design as an existing practice.","remaining_difference":"It elicits general requirements rather than testing alternative page-level paratext configurations or predicting whether particular notes and sequences will foreclose interpretations; it has no per-edition release gate or post-release forecast backtest.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"C21 Editions stakeholder research and prototype development","overlap":"The project combines stakeholder interviews, thematic analysis, participatory design workshops, and prototype scholarly editions before final implementation.","remaining_difference":"Its reported process concerns the future form, standards, and technical affordances of digital editions, not stratified readers' interpretive trajectories, uncertainty-qualified threshold decisions, accountable overrides, or calibration against post-release readings.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrast would be falsified by a preexisting documented critical-edition workflow that tests alternative introductions, annotations, or document sequences with intended-reader strata; predicts contextual comprehension and interpretive foreclosure with uncertainty; conditions production release on a threshold result or recorded override; and later compares identically coded realized readings with the forecast. The proposed intervention's practical advantage would also fail if its blinded pilot does not outperform editor-only classifications or is unstable under trivial recoding.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Within the retained sources, the uncollided claim is the complete production-control loop: an uncertainty-qualified forecast of intended readers' comprehension and interpretive foreclosure is translated into traceable paratext changes before an accountable release gate, then calibrated against post-release readings. Existing annotation guidance, reader-requirements research, participatory prototyping, and paratext-effects experiments each omit at least one of those links.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four distinct lanes were searched: the direct problem and intervention, paratext and reader-oriented terminology, scholarly-editing practices and guidance, and combinations of experiments, prototypes, usability research, and release control. Exactly four direct sources from four institutional or scholarly publishers were retained and opened; three are primary or first-party sources. No retained source disclosed the complete forecast-gate-backtest combination.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed one-comparison pilot is tightly bounded to one public-domain passage, two existing layouts, at most 24 consenting readers, three predefined familiarity strata, blinded assignment, a fixed rubric, two coders, leave-one-out prediction, and no production changes. Controlled paratext experiments and prototype-based scholarly-edition research show that its basic methods are feasible, while the small sample appropriately limits it to a calibration and failure-case test.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The retained art separately covers interpretive-openness guidance, empirical paratext effects, user-requirements research, and participatory prototyping, but not an uncertainty-qualified interpretive forecast that controls release and is subsequently backtested. That structural difference can be tested against an editor-only baseline using predefined envelope classifications and sensitivity checks.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized first step is read-only and uses duplicate mockups with consenting readers. The accountable editor retains the decision, contributor-attributed changes require contributor approval, the production lead only enforces the recorded gate, and explicit halt conditions protect primary text, confidential material, and prediction stability. No obvious safety or authority defect requires stopping this pilot.","source_ids":[],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The problem is visible at two levels: official editing guidance says annotations must supply audience-appropriate context without locking down interpretation, and an experiment found that paratextual framing changed several reader perceptions and experiences. User-requirements research further shows that scholarly editions are meaningfully designed around reader needs. The sources do not independently establish the claimed cost of every fixed release or prove that editors universally lack such a preflight, so support is partial rather than comprehensive.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Annotation practice explicitly faces the proposed context-versus-foreclosure tension, and controlled evidence shows that unchanged stories can receive different reader responses under different paratextual framing. Reader-oriented research and scholarly-edition prototyping are established, but the retained evidence does not document the full claimed workflow gap or quantify post-release correction costs.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P139","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["digital scholarly edition usability evaluation readers study iterative design","scholarly edition prototype readers feedback annotations design","paratext experimental study readers interpretation literary quality"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["critical edition reader response annotations usability study","scholarly edition paratext reader testing annotations interpretation","paratext footnotes influence readers interpretation empirical study"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["scholarly editing standard annotations audience reader critical edition guidelines","MLA Committee on Scholarly Editions guidelines audience annotation apparatus","C21 Editions focus group scholarly edition"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["reader-oriented scholarly edition user testing annotations","critical editions focus group readers annotations","extratextual effects literary readers experiment","digital editions of text user requirements scholarly editing"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Annotations are critical paratext whose purpose and form depend on an edition's intended readership.","Annotations should provide necessary context while identifying ambiguity and should not lock down a single interpretation.","Editors can vary annotation type and whether a note appears in print or online."],"publisher":"Linked Early Modern Drama Online, University of Victoria","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Chapter 17: Annotations","url":"https://lemdo.uvic.ca/lemdo/learn_annotationsChapter.html"},{"claims_supported":["A within-subjects experiment exposed 225 participants to three stories with randomized paratextual framing.","High-literary-merit framing increased ratings of literary quality, reflection, transportation, and identification.","Some hypothesized effects were absent, including effects on reading time and the targeted inference-effort measures, demonstrating outcome sensitivity rather than uniform paratext influence."],"publisher":"International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature (IGEL)","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"The Influence of Paratext on Readers' Perception of Stories and Narrative Experiences","url":"https://discourse.igelsociety.org/t/the-influence-of-paratext-on-readers-perception-of-stories-and-narrative-experiences/350"},{"claims_supported":["The study analyzed 242 digital-edition projects and obtained 218 complete user-survey responses.","It identified requested features that were often absent and produced recommendations encouraging stronger attention to user needs in digital editions.","Reader-informed evaluation of scholarly editions is established adjacent practice."],"publisher":"Association for Computing Machinery and University of Edinburgh","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Digital Editions of Text: Surveying User Requirements in the Digital Humanities","url":"https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/digital-editions-of-text-surveying-user-requirements-in-the-digit/"},{"claims_supported":["C21 Editions used semi-structured stakeholder interviews and thematic analysis to study digital scholarly-editing practice.","Its planned next phase combined participatory design workshops with development of two prototype digital editions.","Preimplementation stakeholder research and prototyping are established within scholarly-edition development."],"publisher":"University College Cork","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"C21 Editions: Editing and Publishing in the Digital Age","url":"https://www.ucc.ie/en/cacsss/research/researchnewsarchive/c21-editions-editing-and-publishing-in-the-digital-age-.html"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent components but no opened source containing the full interpretive-forecast, production-gate, and forecast-backtest loop. That absence is only a search result, not evidence of world novelty. The screen does not establish novelty over patents, inaccessible publications, internal publisher workflows, non-English terminology, or uncatalogued historical practice, and it cannot establish patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}