{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Akoma Ntoso LegalDocumentML lifecycle and versioning model","overlap":"Models administrative regulations, judgments, gazettes, amendments, repeal and other document-lifecycle events; links each event to an identifiable source document; and supports validity, efficacy, status and multiple temporal versions.","remaining_difference":"The standard describes legal-document representation, not a governed bitemporal event store whose record-time history, litigation-sensitive normative-force projections, processing frontier and deterministic rebuild-and-diff behavior are jointly specified.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Dutch government federated event-sourcing proof of concept","overlap":"Constructs state from events, supports time travel and consumer-specific views, distinguishes occurrence and creation dates, represents claims, corrections and validations with authority roles, and builds read models from distributed event stores.","remaining_difference":"Its demonstrated domain is civil-registration events rather than administrative-rule force; it does not provide the proposed legal-event taxonomy, source-instrument lineage, jurisdictional and litigation projectors, or declared completeness frontier.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"Australian Federal Register of Legislation","overlap":"An approved whole-of-government register containing legal text, lifecycle details, relationships, historical point-in-time versions and court-reliable authorised versions, including regulations and legislative instruments.","remaining_difference":"The retained description does not show decision-time knowledge reconstruction, canonical correction and judicial-status assertions, replayable projector versions, or frontier-visible reconciliation across publication and litigation sources.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"United States e-CFR and amendment-file system","overlap":"Links current regulatory text to amendment files, effective dates, Federal Register sources and correction records, while exposing update status and some historical information.","remaining_difference":"It remains a current-text editorial compilation with stated exclusions and verification requirements; it does not unify judicial treatment, interpretive materials and record-time knowledge into rebuildable normative-force projections.","source_ids":["SRC1"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would be falsified if an existing system or standard were shown, for one administrative-rule lineage, to make source-linked publication, correction, effective-date, stay, injunction, vacatur and repeal assertions canonical; preserve both asserted-effect time and recorded-knowledge time; and deterministically rebuild versioned jurisdictional, historical-force and litigation-status views with disclosed processing frontier and conflicts.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a bounded administrative-rule lineage, a canonical source-linked ledger combining legal-effect time with record time and judicial-status events may enable pinned, discardable projectors to reproduce both asserted force and what was knowable at earlier checkpoints while exposing source frontier and unresolved legal conflicts. The retained prior art supplies major components but not this complete testable combination.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The screen covered direct intervention terminology, bitemporal and older temporal-model terminology, official regulatory and legislative registers, legal-document standards, and event-sourcing component combinations. Exactly four opened sources from four publishers were retained, including official guidance, an official standard and first-party government systems.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed read-only test is limited to one completed lineage, no more than 40 assertions, one pinned projector and five predetermined valid-time/record-time checkpoints. Comparison against archived official views yields reproducibility, missing-evidence and disagreement measures without operational deployment.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Point-in-time registers, lifecycle standards and event-sourced read models are established adjacent components, but the retained sources do not show their full combination for administrative-rule normative force, including litigation events, dual-time knowledge reconstruction, frontier disclosure and deterministic rebuild-and-diff.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"A shadow ledger built only from public documents can be tested without issuing or interpreting controlling law. Official sources demonstrate why authoritative status must remain explicit: the e-CFR requires verification against official publications, while the Australian register separately identifies court-reliable authorised versions. The proposed halt conditions and non-authoritative labeling address the principal obvious risk.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The official e-CFR description directly exposes fragmentation and temporal caveats: current text and amendment files are separate, updates may lag, future amendments may be delayed or withdrawn, several legally relevant document classes are omitted, and users must verify against other official collections. This supports the reconstruction problem, though the broader claim about inconsistent agency, docket and internal views was not independently demonstrated.","source_ids":["SRC1"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is partly visible in official practice. The e-CFR integrates effective amendments into current text but keeps amendment history separately, excludes temporary rules and many interpretive or applicability documents, warns that announced future effectiveness can change, records editorial and agency corrections differently, and directs legal researchers to reconcile multiple official collections. The search did not independently establish the claimed frequency or materiality of cross-system status errors for a particular litigated lineage.","source_ids":["SRC1"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P164","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No retained source implemented the complete administrative-rule combination of bitemporal event assertions, litigation-sensitive force projection, frontier disclosure and deterministic rebuild comparison.","queries":["legal knowledge graph rules validity events amendments repeals court decisions temporal provenance","\"event sourcing\" legislation legal information system","Akoma Ntoso temporal model legislation versions events applicability validity"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No exact public match for a bitemporal normative-force event ledger for administrative rules was located; the retained official e-CFR account documents the direct reconstruction conditions and limitations.","queries":["administrative rules historical versions legal status effective date corrections stays litigation database bitemporal","administrative regulation \"point in time\" historical versions court stay status"],"source_ids":["SRC1"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["eCFR historical versions point in time amendments corrections official status","official legislation database point-in-time versions amendments repeal judicial decisions validity history","commercial regulatory obligations register version history legal effective dates court decisions product"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["\"bitemporal\" legislation legal rules version history","legal knowledge graph rules validity events amendments repeals court decisions temporal provenance","Akoma Ntoso temporal model legislation versions events applicability validity"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["The e-CFR is a daily updated editorial compilation rather than an official legal edition.","Its current-code and amendment-file databases expose effective dates and source links but require caution about delays, withdrawals and partial effectiveness.","Temporary rules and several interpretive, policy, compliance-date and applicability documents are excluded or handled elsewhere.","Editorial and agency corrections follow different recorded paths, and researchers are directed to verify against multiple official collections."],"publisher":"National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"About the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations","url":"https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/about-ecfr"},{"claims_supported":["The Australian Federal Register of Legislation is an approved whole-of-government site containing lifecycle details and relationships between laws.","It provides point-in-time versions for regulations and legislative instruments, with stated historical coverage limits.","Specified authorised versions may be relied upon in court proceedings."],"publisher":"Australian Government, Office of Parliamentary Counsel","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"About this website — Federal Register of Legislation","url":"https://www.legislation.gov.au/help-and-resources/using-the-legislation-register/about-the-federal-register-of-legislation"},{"claims_supported":["Akoma Ntoso covers administrative regulations, judgments, official gazettes and amendment documents.","Its lifecycle model represents separate identifiable events caused by source documents, including approval, amendment and repeal.","It supports original, single and multiple versions plus validity, efficacy and status attributes linked to lifecycle events."],"publisher":"OASIS Open","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0, Part 1: XML Vocabulary","url":"https://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-core/v1.0/os/part1-vocabulary/akn-core-v1.0-os-part1-vocabulary.html"},{"claims_supported":["The proof of concept constructs current state from events, supports time travel and builds consumer-specific views.","Its event schema separates created and occurred times and records identity, type, source authority and references.","It distinguishes claims, corrections and official validations, and states that claims alone have no legal consequences.","Its read model derives views from distributed event stores."],"publisher":"Dutch Government Digilab","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Event Sourcing PoC backend","url":"https://digilab.overheid.nl/docs/event-sourcing/backend/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This coarse public-web screen found adjacent systems and standards but no exact retained match. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance or realized value; unindexed products, internal government systems, patents and non-English materials may contain closer prior art."}