{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"U.S. Courts Design Guide courtroom-acoustics requirements","overlap":"Requires courtroom speech intelligibility, an STI target above 0.6, IEC/ANSI measurement, background-noise and reverberation control, acoustical consulting, and sound-absorbing finishes; it also warns that amplification cannot cure poor room acoustics.","remaining_difference":"Does not expressly require a complete grid of every legally consequential position, preserve an aggregate SPL indicator beside the position distribution, or specify a reversible complaint-triggered retrofit experiment.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},{"name":"NTi Audio standardized multi-position STIPA workflow","overlap":"Uses a standardized speech-like source, calibrated measurement equipment, several listening positions, empty-room/night testing, averaging, acoustic changes, and immediate remeasurement.","remaining_difference":"It is a general measurement and commissioning workflow, not a courtroom protocol organized by legal-role positions, repeat-day persistence, judicial authority, recording-feed safeguards, or individualized-accommodation preservation.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},{"name":"25th District Courthouse targeted absorber retrofit","overlap":"An actual courthouse retrofit used baseline RT60 measurements, absorptive panels concentrated near the stenographer, witness stand, and jury box, off-hours installation, maintained sightlines, and post-installation verification showing reduced reverberation and reported intelligibility gains.","remaining_difference":"The case reports room-level RT60 and qualitative role-level benefits rather than a preregistered complete-position STI/SNR grid, uncertainty-qualified local failures, reversible mock-up, aggregate-versus-tail crosswalk, or explicit no-degradation tests for every position and the official recording.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"Falsify the remaining claim if two calibrated baseline surveys do not reproduce any below-threshold legally consequential position while the aggregate level remains stable, or if blinded pre/post testing shows that the removable kit fails to improve those positions beyond uncertainty without degrading another position, the aggregate operating range, recording feed, privacy, ventilation, or safety.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"In a currently used courtroom that passes a stable aggregate sound-level check, complete preregistered measurements at every legally consequential position will reveal repeatable below-threshold local intelligibility that a removable, reflection-targeted passive kit can improve without changing the valid aggregate indicator, degrading other positions or the official recording, or displacing individualized accommodations. The retained sources establish the component practices but do not directly demonstrate this full contrastive package.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four lanes covered direct courtroom formulations, older intelligibility terminology, standards/products/practices, and combinations of spatial measurement with passive treatment. Exactly four opened sources from four publishers were retained, including official guidance and an international standard. This is adequate only for a coarse screen.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"One unoccupied courtroom, two repeat baseline days, predefined positions and thresholds, and a same-day removable mock-up comparison form a bounded test with explicit stop and rollback criteria. Standardized sources, multi-position measurements, after-hours testing, and remeasurement are practicable established techniques.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Although the constituent practices substantially overlap established guidance and implementations, the narrower joint claim—stable aggregate compliance plus repeatable legally consequential local failures corrected by a reversible targeted kit without macro, positional, recording, safety, or accommodation degradation—is explicit and falsifiable.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized first step is non-speech, after-hours, and reversible. The proposal assigns judicial, facilities, fire, preservation, security, and procedural authority and requires stopping for leakage, nonrepeatability, obstruction, recording degradation, or operational interference. Existing guidance and practice contemplate acoustical consultants, absorptive finishes, sightline-sensitive installation, and off-hours work; no obvious categorical stop appears.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Official court guidance treats high speech intelligibility as critical and identifies background noise, reverberation, room geometry, and sound-system performance as determinants. A courthouse case reports participants struggling to hear despite microphones and an AV system, followed by improvement after absorption. However, the specific asserted baseline practice—accepting a few aggregate SPL checks as proof for every seat—was not directly documented.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Courtroom intelligibility failures caused by reverberation, background noise, reflective geometry, and system limitations are visible, as are standardized position measurements and passive absorber retrofits. Evidence is only partial for the proposal's sharper institutional premise that a compliant room-average SPL is commonly treated as proof of intelligibility at every legally consequential position.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P170","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["courtroom speech intelligibility seat positions acoustic measurements reverberation STI","courtroom acoustic treatment measured STI multiple locations seats retrofit absorptive panels","speech intelligibility test measurement grid average STI minimum position standard","STIPA measurement multiple listener positions spatial average intelligibility standard"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["courtroom acoustics poor speech intelligibility reverberation absorptive panels study","courtroom acoustic survey microphone grid speech transmission index","courtroom room average sound level intelligibility every seat","courtroom acoustical renovation speech intelligibility acoustic panels case study"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:uscourts.gov courtroom acoustics speech intelligibility design guide","IEC 60268-16 speech transmission index official standard measurement positions","courtroom acoustic commissioning STI receiver positions measurement","STIPA measurement multiple listener positions spatial average intelligibility standard"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":"Searches using RASTI, Articulation Index, percentage articulation loss, and word recognition found historical or adjacent terminology but no retained source closer than the current court guidance, IEC/STIPA workflow, and courtroom retrofit practice.","queries":["courtroom RASTI articulation index acoustic intelligibility","courtroom articulation index sound system acoustics","courtroom percentage articulation loss acoustics","courtroom word recognition reverberation acoustic treatment"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Federal courtroom design treats high speech intelligibility as critical.","Court critical spaces target STI greater than 0.6, measured under IEC 60268-16 or ANSI methodology.","Background noise, reverberation, room shape, finishes, loudspeaker placement, and sound absorption are established courtroom design variables.","Sound-absorbing treatment is an essential courtroom design component, with placement selected case by case."],"publisher":"Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"U.S. Courts Design Guide, Revised 2021","url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/file/31049/download"},{"claims_supported":["IEC 60268-16 defines the STI model, standardized test signals, and measurement and prediction methods.","The standard documents measurement limitations and adjustments for alternative ambient-noise and speech levels."],"publisher":"International Electrotechnical Commission","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"IEC 60268-16:2020 — Objective rating of speech intelligibility by speech transmission index","url":"https://webstore.iec.ch/en/publication/26771"},{"claims_supported":["STIPA measures a known signal at each measurement position.","A complete room assessment typically uses several measurements at different positions.","A standardized talker-like loudspeaker can be used in rooms without PA systems.","Empty-room or nighttime testing, calibrated equipment, acoustic changes, and remeasurement are established operational practices."],"publisher":"NTi Audio AG","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Speech Intelligibility STIPA","url":"https://www.nti-audio.com/en/applications/evacuation-systems/speech-intelligibility-stipa/"},{"claims_supported":["A courthouse reported hearing difficulty and excessive reverberation despite microphones and an AV system.","A targeted retrofit placed absorptive panels near the stenographer, witness stand, jury box, and rear walls.","Installation was coordinated around court operations and maintained sightlines.","Post-treatment verification reported RT60 reduction from 1.4–1.7 seconds to approximately 0.7–0.8 seconds and improved clarity."],"publisher":"Commercial Acoustics","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Courtroom Acoustics Upgrade: 25th District Courthouse","url":"https://commercial-acoustics.com/case-studies/courtroom-acoustics-upgrade-25th-district-courthouse/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen shows that courtroom STI assessment, multi-position standardized testing, strategically placed absorption, off-hours work, and post-treatment verification are established practices. It did not locate the exact complete-position, aggregate-preserving, reversible and authority-bounded protocol as one disclosed implementation. That phrase or combination miss cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, adoption prevalence, or realized value."}