{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Agency Structure Attribution Balance","overlap":"Directly matches the proposal's core architecture: fixed explanatory target; focal and distributed actor inventory; actor–structure evidence matrix; dated cross-scale process tracing; actor-substitution and structural-relaxation probes; narrative focal-actor audit; plural causal synthesis; uncertainty; and separation of causal contribution from praise, blame, or liability.","remaining_difference":"The proposal operationalizes the generic archetype for digitized special-collections discovery using collection-level workflow states, a defined fiscal-year outcome, specific library records, and library-specific authority boundaries.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Contribution analysis and process tracing","overlap":"Established evaluation guidance fixes an outcome and hypothesized mechanism, identifies observable implications for true and false explanations, draws on varied evidence, assesses other influencing factors, and preserves alternative explanations rather than claiming definitive causal proof.","remaining_difference":"The guidance does not specifically require auditing narrative prominence, distinguishing a named occupant from positional authority, inventorying invisible library labor, or pairing actor substitution with structural-relaxation probes.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Lean business-process management in archives and special collections","overlap":"The case study defines backlog and time-to-completion outcomes, maps discrete archival workflow steps and stall points, identifies responsibilities, tracks collections through a shared queue, coordinates multiple roles, and reports measurable throughput change.","remaining_difference":"Lean workflow mapping focuses on process improvement and explicitly deemphasizes persons; it does not itself attribute a past outcome across actor choices and structural conditions, audit public credit, or test bounded counterfactual substitutions.","source_ids":["SRC2"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim is falsified if applying ordinary Lean workflow mapping and contribution analysis to the same 30 collections already produces the same staffing-relevant conclusions, or if collection-level evidence cannot distinguish the focal occupant's choices from role authority, distributed execution, repository capability, grant capacity, and timing. It is also falsified if removing the focal person's name causes no loss of mechanism or timing information.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"In this library setting, the domain-specific dossier adds testable value only if its collection-level state traces and preregistered delayed-approval and no-batch-editing probes materially change the explanation relative to standard workflow mapping plus contribution analysis, specifically by separating occupant choice from positional, distributed, technical, and institutional mechanisms.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four lanes covered the exact title and mechanism names, archival and library synonyms, workflow products and practices, causal-evaluation methods, and combinations involving invisible labor, roles, technology, and backlog reduction. Four opened sources from three publishers were retained, including primary research and official government guidance.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed read-only, stratified sample of 30 collections has a fixed outcome, three periods, specified existing records, a limited output, and two preregistered probes. It can test evidence availability and explanatory discrimination without interviews, operational changes, or personnel verdicts.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Although the general intervention substantially collides with SRC1, a narrower empirical claim remains: the library-specific state-transition dossier must produce a materially different mechanism-level explanation than established Lean workflow mapping and contribution analysis. That comparison has observable failure conditions.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized step is de-identified, read-only, and non-interventional; it excludes personnel rankings, discipline, public corrections, descriptive changes, and resource decisions. Explicit halt conditions protect sensitive personnel and community evidence. No obvious stop applies if de-identification and existing-record authorization hold.","source_ids":["SRC1"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Archival case evidence documents persistent backlogs, limited staffing, inconsistent workflows, disputed responsibilities, cross-department coordination, and measurable effects of shared workflow changes. Primary library research separately shows that output-centered assessment can hide metadata, infrastructure, and other background labor. The exact celebrated-head episode is not independently verified.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The general problem is partly supported: archival backlogs and discoverability delays depend on staffing, standards, workflow design, tracking systems, and coordinated work, while library assessment can render metadata and infrastructure labor invisible. The retained sources do not establish that the specified library's annual report actually overcredits one metadata head or that its fiscal-year improvement has the asserted causal ambiguity.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P141","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["\"actor-structure evidence matrix\" process tracing attribution","\"narrative focal actor\" audit causal attribution","organizational outcome attribution multiple actors position role substitution process tracing","archives \"actor substitution\" \"structural\" counterfactual attribution"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact title \"Collection Discovery Attribution Dossier\" returned no retained match, but exact mechanism searches located a generic intervention with nearly identical components; therefore the phrase miss was not treated as novelty evidence.","queries":["\"Collection Discovery Attribution Dossier\"","\"metadata\" \"contribution analysis\" library archives workflow","archival backlog causal attribution staff technology grant workflow"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["library metadata backlog workflow assessment collection level timestamps discovery catalog processing","contribution analysis process tracing alternative explanations counterfactual official guidance","archives reparative description community participation metadata standards official guidance"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:clir.org hidden collections archives backlog intellectual access special collections report","library annual report invisible labor metadata staff credit","archival backlog causal attribution staff technology grant workflow"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Defines a generic actor–structure attribution intervention for outcomes publicly centered on one visible actor.","Specifies essentially the same evidence matrix, cross-level process tracing, actor-substitution probe, structural-relaxation probe, narrative focality audit, plural synthesis, uncertainty, and responsibility boundary as the proposal.","Warns that source visibility, formal position, and commemoration must not substitute for causal magnitude."],"publisher":"The Encyclopedia of Abstractions","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OTHER","title":"Agency Structure Attribution Balance","url":"https://abstractopedia.org/archetypes/agency_structure_attribution_balance/"},{"claims_supported":["Reports archival and special-collections backlogs associated with constrained staffing, inconsistent practices, unclear responsibility, and workflow stall points.","Demonstrates current-state workflow mapping, shared collection tracking, cross-role coordination, time-to-completion metrics, and increased throughput in two institutional cases.","Shows that workflow improvement can involve leadership support, technical-services staffing, standards, shared software, and collective implementation rather than one mechanism."],"publisher":"College & Research Libraries, Association of College and Research Libraries","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Leaning Into the Future, Together: Applying Business Process Management to Increase Efficiency and Manage Change in Archives and Special Collections","url":"https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/25519/34240"},{"claims_supported":["Defines process tracing as a structured method for assessing how a particular outcome arose through hypothesized mechanisms and observable implications.","Defines contribution analysis as testing an evidenced causal chain while assessing other influencing factors.","Requires careful treatment of alternative explanations and states that these methods support bounded contribution claims rather than definitive causal proof."],"publisher":"Government of the United Kingdom","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Magenta Book Annex A: Analytical methods for use within an evaluation","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book/magenta-book-annex-a-analytical-methods-for-use-within-an-evaluation-html"},{"claims_supported":["Primary survey research documents invisible labor in academic libraries.","Finds that output- and ROI-centered assessment can omit metadata, technology, infrastructure, and other background work.","Explains how collapsing diverse tasks into general labor obscures expertise and can distort funding and resource-allocation judgments."],"publisher":"College & Research Libraries, Association of College and Research Libraries","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Invisible Labor, Invisible Value: Unpacking Traditional Assessment of Academic Library Value","url":"https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/25683/33594"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found no exact-title match but found a direct generic archetype that substantially reproduces the intervention's defining mechanisms, plus established archival workflow and causal-evaluation practices covering its operational components. The surviving distinction is a testable domain adaptation, not a supported claim of world novelty. The search cannot establish publication priority, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or exhaustive novelty."}