{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Second System Complexity Restraint","overlap":"Directly matches the proposal's causal sequence and intervention architecture: a constrained successful predecessor, accumulated deferred ambitions, constraint-memory recovery, separated work classes, a successor core contract, feature-admission rubric, complexity budget, staged release ladder, launchability review, and reversible migration.","remaining_difference":"It is domain-general rather than an evaluated athlete-monitoring protocol. The remaining contribution is an athlete-specific implementation and empirical test, including training-load continuity, athlete burden, medical authority, data provenance, and parallel operation.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"“To Tech or Not to Tech?” decision framework","overlap":"Requires sport-technology proposals to demonstrate useful decision information, adequate evidence, contextual fit, and implementation feasibility while accounting for athlete and practitioner burden, data pipelines, communication, and resources.","remaining_difference":"It evaluates individual technology adoption rather than the cumulative, predecessor-to-successor release of deferred ambition or a protected successor core with tiered admission and rollback.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"AIS athlete-centric data-governance principles","overlap":"Establishes that technology and athlete-information decisions must serve athletes' interests and be governed as a fiduciary responsibility, supporting the proposal's consent, privacy, medical-safety, and authority limits.","remaining_difference":"It does not provide the proposed second-system scope firewall, aggregate complexity budget, staged ambition backlog, or parity-first migration gate.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining athlete-domain claim would be falsified if the sampled program lacks a successful constrained predecessor and a stockpile of postponed ambitions entering its successor, or if existing governed release tiers already separate parity, safety, repair, validated improvements, and speculation and the proposed charter and aggregate budget reveal no additional cumulative launchability conflict.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"The defensible remaining claim is not novelty of the general second-system intervention, which SRC1 substantially anticipates. It is the narrower empirical claim that applying that intervention to an athlete-monitoring successor—using a protected training-load core, athlete-burden and validation budgets, clinician authority, and reversible parallel operation—will expose consequential cumulative conflicts missed by item-by-item review and yield stable, non-arbitrary release tiers.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four search lanes covered the proposal directly, second-system and scope-creep terminology, athlete-monitoring research and implementation practices, official data governance, and combinations of burden, validation, workflow, migration, and staged release. Exactly four sources from four publishers were retained and opened; SRC4 is official guidance.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed two-hour, no-deployment workshop is bounded to existing records, at most 20 backlog items and eight predecessor constraints, and produces only a decision memo. It directly tests classification stability, cumulative conflicts, attempted gate bypasses, and whether a protected core and reversible transition can be specified.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The proposed predecessor-to-successor mechanism and nearly all named controls substantially coincide with SRC1. An athlete-specific application remains testable, but the proposal does not presently distinguish a new mechanism from that prior art.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"status":"FAIL"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The first step is read-only and de-identified, changes neither training nor clinical practice, and preserves physician veto, privacy authorization, manual override, and rollback. Official athlete-centric governance reinforces rather than blocks those limits. Any later data collection, clinical model use, or deployment would require separate authorization.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The literature makes the surrounding problem visible: athlete-load monitoring has expanded rapidly across measures and technologies, while selection, validity, interpretability, practitioner resources, athlete burden, communication, and governance constrain useful implementation. Public sources do not independently document this proposal's specific successor backlog or causal history, so support is partial rather than case-confirming.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The general athlete-monitoring burden and workflow problem is visible, but the asserted case-specific sequence—a constrained successful predecessor producing confidence and a postponed-ambition stockpile that floods its successor—is not independently established. The general sequence and proposed controls are directly described in domain-general prior art.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P151","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["athlete monitoring implementation framework data burden coach workflow validity reliability","athlete monitoring successor complexity budget staged release parallel run","sport technology implementation athlete burden data pipeline communication decision framework"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["athlete monitoring system redesign successor scope creep complexity training load workflow","Second System Complexity Restraint predecessor constraint memory successor charter complexity budget"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["official athlete management system data governance privacy high performance sport","athlete management system implementation data governance official sport institute"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["second-system effect software successor feature creep complexity budget staged release","second-system syndrome constrained predecessor deferred features successor","scope creep feature creep athlete monitoring technology"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["A constrained successful first system can generate confidence and a backlog of deferred ambitions that overloads its successor.","Prior-art controls include predecessor constraint memory, separated work classes, a successor core contract, complexity budgeting, admission rubrics, staged release, launchability review, and reversible migration."],"publisher":"The Encyclopedia of Abstractions","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OTHER","title":"Second System Complexity Restraint","url":"https://abstractopedia.org/archetypes/second_system_complexity_restraint/"},{"claims_supported":["Athlete-load monitoring has expanded rapidly through multidisciplinary measures and novel technologies.","Monitoring information must remain reliable, accurate, interpretable, and useful to coaches, athletes, and sport-science and medicine staff."],"publisher":"U.S. National Library of Medicine (PubMed record for International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance)","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","title":"Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28463642/"},{"claims_supported":["Sport-technology adoption should begin with explicit decision value and adequate evidence.","Implementation must account for athlete and practitioner burden, time and resources, data aggregation, communication, and decision pathways."],"publisher":"National Athletic Trainers' Association","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","title":"“To Tech or Not to Tech?” A Critical Decision-Making Framework for Implementing Technology in Sport","url":"https://meridian.allenpress.com/jat/article/55/9/902/444132/To-Tech-or-Not-to-Tech-A-Critical-Decision-Making"},{"claims_supported":["Technology and athlete-information decisions should be athlete-centric and made in athletes' best interests.","High-performance sport technology and athlete information require explicit governance responsibilities."],"publisher":"Australian Sports Commission / Australian Institute of Sport","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Data Governance: Best Practice Principles on Athlete-Centric Governance of Technology and Athlete Information","url":"https://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/performance-support/topicinitiative/data-governance"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source screen found a substantial conceptual collision with the proposal's general causal structure and intervention bundle. It does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or whether an athlete-monitoring implementation with these exact operational parameters has previously been tested."}