{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"ACUS Recommendation 2021-2, Periodic Retrospective Review","overlap":"Recommends recurring review plans, cadence adjusted for statutory-framework changes and implementation difficulties, documented and reproducible review data, public input, reassessment, and assigned expert staff.","remaining_difference":"It reviews regulatory performance broadly; it does not prescribe a versioned provision-to-authority dependency record, persistence or acceleration indicators, counsel-validated condition bands, or authority-specific repair escalation.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Federal authority-citation maintenance requirements and PHMSA's recurring editorial review","overlap":"Federal codification rules make agencies responsible for authority-citation accuracy and require formal amendments after authority changes. PHMSA describes regular review used to remove obsolete material and repair incorrect references, omissions, inconsistent definitions, and cross-references.","remaining_difference":"These practices correct identified defects but do not disclose longitudinal condition histories, warning thresholds, accumulated workaround evidence, or a counsel-owned escalation backlog.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},{"name":"Measuring Law Over Time dynamic legal-document network framework","overlap":"Models statutes and regulations jointly as multidimensional, dynamic networks and tracks individual legal documents over time.","remaining_difference":"It is an analytical research framework, not an operational legal-maintenance process mapping each provision's authority, amendments, definitions, and judicial treatment to validated repair decisions.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim would be falsified by evidence that an existing practice already combines provision-level, versioned statute-regulation-case dependencies with persistence or acceleration indicators, counsel-validated condition bands, owned repair work, and escalation to the legally competent official—or by a retrospective pilot showing that these additions do not identify counsel-confirmed coherence problems earlier or more reliably than ordinary periodic review.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Beyond established periodic regulatory review, mandatory authority-citation maintenance, editorial correction, and dynamic legal-network analysis, the testable remainder is that a bounded, versioned authority-chain record with longitudinal signals, counsel-validated bands, and authority-specific escalation detects accumulating legal-coherence defects earlier and routes them more consistently than those practices alone.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four search lanes covered the proposal directly, historical terminology, official practices and commercial comparison concepts, and combinations involving temporal legal networks, citation maintenance, retrospective review, and repair backlogs. Exactly four direct sources were opened, spanning four publishers and including official and primary sources.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A read-only retrospective of one chapter and a bounded amendment sequence is feasible. Two qualified reviewers can independently build and reconcile the map, then measure missingness, inter-reviewer agreement, counsel-confirmed precision of warning cases, incremental yield over ordinary review, and review burden without changing legal text or obligations.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The proposed combination is distinguishable from the closest sources by its provision-level authority dependencies, longitudinal condition indicators, counsel validation, and role-specific escalation. Its incremental detection yield and reliability can be compared against ordinary periodic review and citation checking.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The bounded test is read-only, preserves authoritative text, treats flags as nonbinding, and leaves amendment, repeal, enforcement, legislative change, and adjudication with existing legal authorities. Official sources confirm that actual corrections require formal agency action; stopping for source corruption, privilege exposure, or reliance on unvalidated flags is appropriate.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Official rules require authority citations to remain accurate, while PHMSA documented obsolete references, nonexistent or reserved cross-references, outdated duplicate definitions, omitted conforming revisions, and stakeholder confusion. ACUS likewise recognizes statutory change, clarifying guidance, remands, and implementation difficulty as reasons for more frequent review. These sources show the defect class, though not the proposal's full accumulation mechanism.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The problem is visible in official practice: agencies are obligated to update authority citations, and a PHMSA chapter-spanning correction found obsolete material, incorrect or nonexistent references, missed conforming edits, and conflicting definitions during regular review. Evidence supports the existence of dispersed coherence defects and the value of periodic review, but does not directly establish that they predictably accumulate or accelerate before consequential conflict.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P169","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["legal dependency graph statutes regulations version history citation checking","regulation statute citation network obsolete references monitoring","regulatory maintenance backlog conforming amendments legal citations"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["regulatory authority citations obsolete statutory references regulations conforming amendments review","site:acus.gov retrospective review agency rules statutory changes obsolete regulations recommendation","site:federalregister.gov authority citations obsolete statutory amendments correcting regulations","\"authority chain\" regulations statutory authority review inventory"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["eCFR 1 CFR 21.41 agency formally amend citations authority changes","Westlaw statutes regulations compare versions authority citation","site:gao.gov retrospective review existing regulations agency process standards","site:federalregister.gov regular review obsolete regulatory references corrections"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["code revision obsolete cross references statutory authority regulations practice","periodic retrospective review regulations statutory framework clarifying guidance remands","dynamic legal document networks statutes regulations over time","regulatory corpus statutory authority dependency map review"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Periodic retrospective review is established agency practice.","Review frequency may respond to statutory-framework changes, implementation difficulties, clarifying guidance, remands, public input, burden, and reliance interests.","Agencies should document review methods and data, reassess plans and cadence, and use qualified staff."],"publisher":"Administrative Conference of the United States / Office of the Federal Register","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Administrative Conference Recommendation 2021-2: Periodic Retrospective Review","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/07/08/2021-14597/adoption-of-recommendations"},{"claims_supported":["Each codified section must be covered by a complete authority citation linking statutory authority and necessary executive delegations.","Issuing agencies are responsible for authority-citation accuracy and integrity and must formally amend citations to reflect changes.","Codified amendments and cross-references are governed by prescribed publication procedures."],"publisher":"U.S. Government Publishing Office / Administrative Committee of the Federal Register","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"1 CFR Part 21—Preparation of Documents Subject to Codification","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cfr/1/21?link-type=pdf&year=mostrecent"},{"claims_supported":["A recurring agency review found obsolete references, incorrect citations, outdated concepts, omitted conforming revisions, nonexistent cross-references, and duplicate definitions.","PHMSA used formal, non-substantive rulemaking to correct the corpus while preserving existing requirements.","The agency stated that erroneous, ambiguous, or obsolete language diverts stakeholder resources and creates confusion."],"publisher":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"Hazardous Materials: Editorial Corrections and Clarifications","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/27/2022-26960/hazardous-materials-editorial-corrections-and-clarifications"},{"claims_supported":["Statutes and regulations can be represented jointly as multidimensional, dynamic document networks.","The framework tracks the evolution of individual legal documents over time.","The study applied the approach to original U.S. and German statute-and-regulation datasets spanning 1998–2019."],"publisher":"Frontiers in Physics / arXiv","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Measuring Law Over Time: A Network Analytical Framework with an Application to Statutes and Regulations in the United States and Germany","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11284"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent official practices and research but no opened source containing the full proposed authority-chain condition workflow. That result does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unindexed internal government procedures, commercial systems, other jurisdictions, and patent literature may contain closer matches."}