{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Process Tracing for Program Evaluation","overlap":"Provides the closest general-method match: bound a single historical outcome, distinguish description from causal inference, compare alternative explanations through event sequences and diagnostic evidence, derive observable implications, and accept that the result may remain inconclusive.","remaining_difference":"It is not a literary-reception protocol and does not prescribe fixed reception indicators, the five proposed candidate classes, source-coverage auditing, cross-venue diffusion tests, an abduction log, or the proposed comparison with an ordinary reception-history memo.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Inference to the Best Explanation in Literary Interpretation","overlap":"Applies inference to the best explanation within literary studies, separates descriptive from interpretive statements, generates and filters hypotheses, and compares them using explicit explanatory virtues.","remaining_difference":"Its target is interpretation of literary texts rather than causal reconstruction of a work's reception change; it does not require temporal priority, venue-order predictions, an archival-artifact rival, or a prospectively discriminating archival probe.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Construction and Legitimation in Literary History","overlap":"Identifies selection, construction, and validity problems in literary history; warns against falsely tidy accounts; and recommends explaining change only for restricted subjects over short spans.","remaining_difference":"It supplies methodological cautions rather than an operational rival-history matrix, predefined reception indicators, revision log, or controlled test against ordinary narrative practice.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"What Library Digitization Leaves Out","overlap":"Empirically demonstrates that digitized literary collections can be non-random and that a fixed external benchmark can expose coverage bias, directly supporting the archival-artifact rival and consistent sampling frame.","remaining_difference":"It evaluates corpus coverage, not competing causal accounts of a reception inflection, venue diffusion, or the value of a structured reconstruction memo.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"Using identical frozen reception records, ordinary-memo reviewers would falsify the claimed added benefit if they match reconstruction reviewers on separating traces from causes, retaining all five candidate classes and an archival-artifact rival, identifying the nearest rival, stating coverage limits, and naming a feasible finding whose alternative outcomes would rerank the explanations, with no meaningful consistency advantage for the reconstruction.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a bounded literary-reception change, a reception-specific reconstruction template may make rival causal sequences, archive-coverage alternatives, and ranking-sensitive archival predictions more explicit and reproducible than an ordinary reception-history memo, beyond what general literary-historical caution, literary IBE, or generic process tracing alone operationalizes.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four lanes covered direct reception-history language, older methodological terms such as abduction and inference to the best explanation, established process-tracing practice, and component combinations involving literary-history construction and digitization bias. Four opened sources from four publishers were retained. No exact implementation was located, but phrase misses were not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed public-domain pilot is reversible and bounded: freeze one work, two adjacent periods, one collection, matching document types, and a preregistered scoring rubric; give identical records to ordinary-memo and reconstruction reviewers. It tests output differences only and cannot establish historical truth or realized value.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The remaining claim is an observable contrast between two memo procedures on predefined outputs: observation-cause separation, rival retention, coverage disclosure, ranking rationale, and a discriminating archival prediction. Adjacent methods contain many components but the retained sources do not report this reception-specific comparison.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The first test analyzes identical public-domain records without changing catalogs, attributing motives, contacting affected people, or asserting a definitive causal history. Public availability does not override repository access controls, and any later archival probe remains subject to custodian permission.","source_ids":["SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Literary-history scholarship explicitly identifies selection, construction, validity, and false-tidiness risks, while empirical library research shows that digital availability can be systematically non-random. The sources support the risk structure, although they do not directly measure causal overclaim rates in reception histories.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible but only indirectly evidenced: literary historians face documented selection and legitimation problems when explaining change, and accessible literary archives can misrepresent the underlying publication population. No retained study directly compares causal reception narratives with rival-aware reconstructions.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P149","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained source combined reception indicators, cross-venue temporal predictions, an archival-artifact rival, an abduction log, and a single ranking-sensitive probe in one reception-specific workflow.","queries":["literary reception study change point reviews editions citations causal explanation","digital literary studies reception history bibliometrics citations editions archive bias","literary reception timeline rival hypotheses archival evidence","What Library Digitization Leaves Out journal"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No exact Reception Inflection Reconstruction or equivalent named protocol was found; this absence is not evidence of novelty.","queries":["literary reception history methodology rival explanations archival bias reputation change","reception history literary archive bias canonization methodology","process tracing reception history literature","causal process tracing literary history reception"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":"Established process tracing and fixed-benchmark coverage analysis were found as relevant practices, but no product or standard implementing the complete proposed literary-reception procedure was identified.","queries":["site:cambridge.org/core process tracing rival hypotheses observable implications historical evidence","site:archives.gov archival records gaps bias historical research guidance","site:mla.org reception history literary research archives methodology","site:culturalanalytics.org library digitization leaves out English novels"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":"Abduction, inference to the best explanation, process tracing, historical explanation, and philological hermeneutics produced adjacent methods but not the full reception-specific combination.","queries":["inference to the best explanation literary history reception archive","Inference to the Best Explanation literary interpretation","causal process tracing literary history reception","literary history causal explanation change short spans reception"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Literary history faces practical problems of selection, construction, and validity.","Explanation of literary change is most defensible for restricted subjects over short periods.","Making literary history appear tidier or more explicable than the evidence permits can falsify the past."],"publisher":"Oxford University Press","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Construction and Legitimation in Literary History","url":"https://academic.oup.com/res/article-abstract/56/226/632/1596473"},{"claims_supported":["Process tracing develops or tests causal explanations of individual historical cases using evidence about processes and event sequences.","It compares theories through diagnostic evidence and their observable implications.","It may yield a strongest-available explanation without requiring a conclusive result."],"publisher":"Cambridge University Press","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Process Tracing for Program Evaluation","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/case-for-case-studies/process-tracing-for-program-evaluation/3282EBD903031583252019931E5C3BB9"},{"claims_supported":["Inference to the best explanation has been explicitly proposed for literary studies.","The method generates and comparatively filters explanatory hypotheses using criteria including mechanism, unity, precision, and range.","The article distinguishes descriptive from interpretive statements and identifies data selection as a methodological issue."],"publisher":"Journal of Literary Theory / JLTonline","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Der Schluss auf die beste Erklärung im Kontext der Literaturinterpretation","url":"https://jltonline.de/articles/10.1/petraschka-beste-erklarung.de.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Availability of digitized nineteenth-century novels is non-random across author gender and publication format.","Samples drawn from major digital libraries may not represent the publication population.","Comparison against a fixed, exhaustive bibliography can reveal coverage and digitization bias."],"publisher":"Johns Hopkins University Press","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"What Library Digitization Leaves Out: Predicting the Availability of Digital Surrogates of English Novels","url":"https://preprint.press.jhu.edu/portal/sites/default/files/riddell.pdf"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found substantial adjacent methodology but no exact reception-specific implementation. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or absence from paywalled, non-indexed, unpublished, non-English, archival, or differently named practices."}