{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"University of Denver Indigenous-subject-heading pilot","overlap":"An IRB-approved case study used community input, a bounded five-heading pilot affecting 660 records, local authority records, stakeholder governance, new patron-facing terms, continued indexing of legacy terms, automated handling of incoming records, and phased retrospective remediation.","remaining_difference":"It does not report a production-versus-shadow query replay, a continuity–rupture mechanism ledger, predefined retrieval-divergence and rollback gates, or an evidence-triggered sunset for dual authority.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"OCLC WorldCat Discovery local subject remapping and search expansion","overlap":"The first-party product separates inclusive display substitution from query expansion while leaving local and global bibliographic data unchanged, thereby preserving controlled-heading retrieval bridges.","remaining_difference":"It is a configurable display-and-search mechanism, not an integrated diagnostic and governance regime with provenance auditing, community contestation, shadow comparison, rollback rehearsal, or reconciliation and sunset decisions.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"TRLN Discovery Subject Re-Mapping Program","overlap":"A library consortium uses configuration-based patron-facing remapping, preserves underlying MARC data and legacy-term searching, documents decisions, accepts user suggestions, consults stakeholders, and requires product-owner approval.","remaining_difference":"TRLN explicitly leaves search results unchanged and describes a display overlay; it does not discriminate competing change mechanisms, measure subgroup retrieval divergence, replay an isolated index, or gate separately timed migration and dual-authority retirement.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"Library of Congress LCSH revision process","overlap":"The official process governs researched heading revisions through public proposals, comments, recorded decisions, and approved lists while maintaining a controlled vocabulary intended to group synonymous concepts for discovery.","remaining_difference":"It governs vocabulary-wide authority decisions rather than a consortium's reversible, function-separated transition across display, identifiers, indexing, ranking, provenance, local overrides, and rollback.","source_ids":["SRC3"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"Falsify the remaining claim if the bounded replay shows that the ledger and proposed gates do not predict retrieval divergence; a governed display-only remap and search expansion preserve equal or better known-item and subject access with no greater legacy leakage; or the shadow index cannot be completely reconciled back to its captured state.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For one contested domain, separately measuring display, identifier, provenance, indexing, ranking, override, and governance behavior can justify a split-tempo transition—immediate approved display suppression but gated retrieval and workflow migration—and predict access or rollback failures that established display remapping, routine authority replacement, or a bulk cutover would miss.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, critical/reparative/decolonizing-catalog terminology, official and vendor practices, and combinations involving authority control, crosswalks, provenance, query replay, and rollback. Four opened sources span four publishers and include primary research, official guidance, and first-party implementations. No search located the complete ledger-plus-shadow-replay regime, though phrase misses are not novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed four-week test is restricted to one domain, 500 records, privacy-reviewed query templates, and an isolated nonproduction index. It specifies measurable divergence, mapping, leakage, community-review, and rollback outcomes plus explicit halt conditions. SRC1 demonstrates a bounded community-informed catalog pilot, while SRC2 shows that display mappings and query expansions are technically separable. The exact duration and sample size remain planning assumptions.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Existing sources establish governed heading revision, display overlays, query expansion, local authority substitution, and phased remediation, but not the claimed use of a typed continuity–rupture ledger and shadow replay to select separate transition tempos and sunset gates. Comparative retrieval, leakage, unresolved-mapping, and rollback measurements can falsify that claimed advantage.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The first step is read-only and nonproduction, excludes patron-visible changes and destructive authority edits, preserves privacy controls, and assigns later cutover authority to a joint board and library director. Community disagreement and production alteration are halt conditions. SRC1's IRB-approved consultation and stakeholder conflict resolution and SRC3/SRC4's formal review processes show relevant governance precedents. Reviewer burden and query-log bias require monitoring but are not categorical stops.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The problem is directly visible: harmful and confusing headings persist; local action can diverge from slow central revision; old and new terms affect display and retrieval differently; externally managed records can leak unwanted terminology; platform limitations can remove browse access; and consortium remapping requires stakeholder review beyond the technical overlay.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Public evidence supports both sides of the continuity–rupture problem. Controlled headings provide consistent synonym grouping and retrieval, yet harmful terminology motivates local replacement. Implementations preserve legacy searching while changing display, but encounter governance disputes, platform-specific indexing limits, externally managed-record leakage, maintenance burdens, and incomplete reach. The evidence strongly supports the operational problem, although it does not establish the proposal's multi-scale regime framing as necessary in every consortium.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P161","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained result combined a continuity–rupture mechanism ledger, multi-resolution record/query timelines, community-governed shadow-index replay, explicit rollback rehearsal, and a dual-authority sunset. This bounded absence does not establish novelty.","queries":["shared catalog local subject heading replacement provenance authority control rollback workflow Sierra","reparative cataloging subject heading remapping test retrieval results search expansion evaluation study","library discovery \"shadow index\" subject headings"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["library replace offensive subject headings shadow index query replay crosswalk provenance","library harmful subject headings local replacement remapping discovery catalog legacy terminology"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:oclc.org inclusive subject headings remap local alternate subject headings WorldCat Discovery","site:loc.gov subject headings illegal aliens noncitizens authority record replacement 2021","TRLN Discovery Subject Re-Mapping Program harmful terms governance search expansion"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["\"critical cataloging\" \"subject headings\" discovery layer local authority","\"decolonizing the catalog\" subject heading replacement crosswalk","\"reparative cataloging\" legacy headings provenance retrieval","inclusive metadata harmful subject headings community review workflow audit discovery layer"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Harmful and confusing LCSH terminology is an observable catalog problem.","A community-informed bounded pilot can replace displayed headings while retaining legacy terms as indexed alternatives.","Local authority changes interact with automated imports, browse indexing, stakeholder authority, external discovery records, and platform limitations.","The reported pilot used IRB-approved surveys and interviews and proceeded iteratively rather than by global replacement."],"publisher":"Library Resources & Technical Services / American Library Association","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Unsettling the Library Catalog: A Case Study in Reducing the Presence of “Indians of North America” and Similar Subject Headings","url":"https://journals.ala.org/index.php/lrts/article/view/8031/11192"},{"claims_supported":["WorldCat Discovery supports institution-specific inclusive subject-display remapping without modifying bibliographic data.","Local search expansion is separately configurable and can map user queries to controlled headings to preserve recall.","Mapping and expansion files require local retention and have concrete configuration constraints."],"publisher":"OCLC","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Create locally preferred subjects for display and search expansion","url":"https://help.oclc.org/Discovery_and_Reference/WorldCat_Discovery/Display_local_data/Create_locally_preferred_subjects_for_display_and_search_expansion"},{"claims_supported":["LCSH exists to group synonymous concepts consistently for discovery and is continually revised.","Heading changes follow researched proposals, public comment, formal review, recorded decisions, and approved lists.","Libraries, institutions, professionals, and members of the public can participate in the revision process."],"publisher":"Library of Congress","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Process for Adding and Revising Library of Congress Subject Headings","url":"https://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/lcsh-process.html"},{"claims_supported":["A research-library consortium operates a patron-facing subject-remapping program while leaving MARC data and search results unchanged.","Legacy terminology remains searchable while preferred terminology appears in facets and item records.","The program uses documented metadata-team review, stakeholder consultation, user suggestions, and product-owner approval."],"publisher":"Triangle Research Libraries Network","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"TRLN Discovery Subject Re-Mapping Program","url":"https://trln.org/2020/10/trln-discovery-subject-re-mapping-program/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This coarse public-web screen found substantial adjacent practice but no opened source describing the complete evidence-contingent, split-tempo transition regime. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unsearched patents, procurement documents, internal consortium procedures, vendor sandboxes, and non-indexed projects may contain closer matches."}