{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Version numbering and change transparency for living digital scholarly editions","overlap":"Treats digital editions as mutable scholarly publications whose successive states and change histories must remain intelligible and citable.","remaining_difference":"It versions edition content and communicates change scope but does not inspect individual interpretive claims for changing evidentiary warrant, trend warning signals, or threshold-triggered editorial repair.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Version-aware annotation targeting and unanchored-annotation detection","overlap":"Preserves annotation-to-text relationships through selectors and target states, and exposes annotations whose anchors fail after source content changes.","remaining_difference":"It detects or mitigates technical anchor failure but does not assess whether a still-resolving interpretation remains warranted by its passage, scholarship, premises, and counterevidence, or route persistent warnings to scholarly adjudication.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},{"name":"Criteria-based review of scholarly digital editions","overlap":"Evaluates edition maturity, consistency, commentary quality, version identification, interlinkage, and long-term curation while recognizing that review captures only a moment in an ongoing publication.","remaining_difference":"The criteria support snapshot, edition-level expert review and improvement suggestions, not recurring samples of claim-level dependencies with persistence, acceleration, calibrated warning bands, owners, and repair deadlines.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would fail if an existing practice already operationally joins versioned claim-to-evidence records, repeated condition judgments, persistence or acceleration thresholds, and assigned editorial responses, or if the blinded pilot shows that proposed signals neither precede independently adjudicated warrant loss nor distinguish deterioration from legitimate interpretive disagreement better than ordinary review.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"A recurring, versioned, claim-level condition loop may connect technical changes and scholarly dependency changes to independently adjudicated deterioration, trend memory, calibrated thresholds, and accountable editorial repair in a way that versioning, annotation anchoring, citation checking, and periodic edition-level review do not individually provide.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the named intervention and problem, changing-document and persistent-annotation terminology, edition-review and versioning practices, W3C and Hypothesis implementations, and combinations involving quality assurance, maintenance, and continuous review. The four opened sources span four publishers and include an official standard and first-party product documentation. No exact thresholded claim-warrant loop was located, although several adjacent components were found.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed eight-week, 20-note read-only pilot is limited in duration and scope and measures reviewer agreement, temporal precedence, false alarms, burden, repairability, and authority fit without modifying publication content. The sources supply observable comparison conditions: version changes, target-state handling, unanchored annotations, and expert edition review.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Prior art separately covers edition version histories, resilient or failed annotation anchoring, and snapshot scholarly review. The proposal makes a separable empirical claim that repeated claim-level dependency signals can precede adjudicated warrant loss and trigger feasible repair without converting theoretical disagreement into defect.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The first step is read-only; published notes remain unchanged; responsible editors inspect evidence before any visible action; scholarly authorities retain repair and qualification decisions; and the design halts for poor rubric consistency, disruptive burden, or personnel use. Expert qualification is also consistent with the review guidance.","source_ids":["SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Digital editions are explicitly described as mutable resources whose content states must be tracked; the W3C model anticipates changing annotation targets; Hypothesis documents actual loss of attachment after text changes; and edition-review guidance treats evaluation as momentary within an ongoing process. These establish the underlying exposure, though they do not directly quantify accumulated loss of interpretive warrant.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible at the infrastructure and editorial-process levels: living digital editions change, meaningful versioning is uncommon, annotations can become unanchored when text changes, and an edition judged mature at one review remains part of an ongoing process. Direct evidence that fluent interpretive claims progressively lose substantive warrant, as opposed to suffering isolated anchor or citation defects, was not found in the retained sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P142","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No exact public match was located for the full combination of recurring claim sampling, versioned evidence dependencies, persistence or acceleration signals, adjudicated warrant bands, false-alarm recalibration, and authority-linked repair.","queries":["\"quality assurance\" \"digital scholarly edition\" maintenance","\"continuous review\" \"digital edition\" scholarly","digital edition quality assurance maintenance workflow annotations version control scholarly edition","persistent annotations changing documents robust anchoring scholarly text primary research"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact title and a substantively equivalent interpretive-warrant condition loop were not located; results addressed component problems and neighboring practices.","queries":["\"Interpretive Warrant Condition Loop\"","living digital scholarly edition interpretive notes revision annotations textual anchors versioning","digital critical edition commentary annotations maintenance broken links text changes","scholarly digital editions recurring review maintenance commentary peer review"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["W3C Web Annotation Data Model changing target state version annotation selector official","Hypothesis annotations text changes orphaned anchors reattach official","digital scholarly edition versioning citation stable references annotations standards","criteria reviewing scholarly digital editions commentary version maintenance"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["persistent web annotations dynamic documents","orphaned annotations changing text","living edition version numbering context drift","electronic scholarly edition peer review revision history"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Digital scholarly editions are mutable scholarly publications and data sources whose evolution and precise states should be intelligible and referenceable.","The article recommends assigning a new meaningful version number whenever edition content changes.","Defined citable version numbers remained rare and lacked field-wide consensus in the reported review."],"publisher":"Digital Humanities Quarterly / Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","title":"Digital Editions and Version Numbering","url":"https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/14/2/000455/000455.html"},{"claims_supported":["The W3C Recommendation standardizes annotation bodies, targets, selectors, lifecycle information, and collections.","Multiple selectors can improve later discovery of an annotated segment.","States and Time States can identify or recover the resource representation appropriate to an annotation when web resources change."],"publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"Web Annotation Data Model","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/"},{"claims_supported":["Annotations can become unanchored when webpage text changes and the product can no longer locate the selected source text.","The system retains the annotation and original anchor text while separating it as unanchored."],"publisher":"Hypothesis","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"What are Unanchored Annotations?","url":"https://web.hypothes.is/help/what-are-unanchored-annotations/"},{"claims_supported":["Scholarly digital edition review should assess maturity and consistency while recognizing that publication and review may capture only a moment in an ongoing process.","The criteria cover version and modification identification, commentary quality, object interlinkage, citation, long-term curation, and scholarly standards.","Reviewers should separate methodological taste from general academic judgment and possess appropriate scholarly and digital expertise."],"publisher":"Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","title":"Criteria for Reviewing Scholarly Digital Editions, version 1.1","url":"https://www.i-d-e.de/publikationen/weitereschriften/criteria-version-1-1/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This coarse public-web screen found adjacent versioning, annotation-persistence, product, and edition-review practices but no exact integrated loop. The result supports only bounded researchability and contrastive testing; it cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized scholarly value."}