{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH)","overlap":"ACH already requires explicit reasonable alternatives, a hypothesis-by-evidence matrix, diagnostic evidence, attempts to disprove candidates, sensitivity analysis, tentative comparative conclusions, future revision indicators, and an audit trail. These substantially reproduce the docket's central inference matrix, defeaters, ranked alternatives, and revision triggers.","remaining_difference":"The proposal adds a municipal code-enforcement intake trigger, explicit observation-versus-allegation separation, authority-limited use, unresolved-tie handling, and selection of the least-intrusive authorized probe.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},{"name":"Secure OIG investigative case-management systems","overlap":"Existing OIG software supports controlled complaint intake, assignment, case notes, evidence tracking, configurable triage, supervisor oversight, access-controlled repositories, and audit trails across the investigative lifecycle.","remaining_difference":"The cited product does not claim a mandatory rival-explanation matrix, diagnostic predictions, tie preservation, or a rule restricting the output to a discriminating pre-investigative probe.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"Judicial comparison of retaliatory and routine municipal code enforcement","overlap":"The Fairport decision addresses an allegation that inspections and enforcement followed protected petitioning, then examines temporal order, preexisting inspection plans, authority, probable cause, and the rival explanation of ordinary enforcement.","remaining_difference":"It is retrospective legal adjudication rather than a provisional inspector-general intake process, and it does not prescribe a reusable rival matrix or least-intrusive next probe.","source_ids":["SRC1"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim would be falsified if a paired shadow review showed that ordinary intake or generic ACH implemented in existing secure OIG case management matched the docket on observation/allegation separation, action-changing rivals, discriminating probes, tie preservation, revision triggers, and reviewer agreement—or if the docket increased retaliation anchoring or produced non-discriminating probes. SRC3 makes the latter risk credible because the conventional ACH matrix orientation did not reduce confirmation bias in its experiment.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Beyond generic ACH and secure investigative case management, the testable residue is that a domain-specific, action-limited municipal intake docket can improve the transition from an ambiguous post-participation inspection trace to a reversible, minimally intrusive inquiry while preserving unresolved ties and preventing provisional rankings from becoming legal or personnel findings.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four search lanes covered the proposal directly, older legal terminology, OIG products and practices, and combinations involving competing-hypothesis analysis, investigative intake, audit trails, and disconfirming evidence. Exactly four retained sources from four publishers were opened; they include an official court source, official federal guidance, primary research, and a first-party product source. The bounded search found strong component prior art but no direct source for the complete municipal docket.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A read-only shadow review capped at 12 closed matters is reversible and appropriately limited to process feasibility. It specifies observable checks, no operational effect, de-identified reporting, and a stop point. Because SRC3 found that matrix layout can materially affect confirmation bias, the protocol should record layout and compare anchoring against ordinary intake; it cannot establish downstream accuracy or retaliation prevention.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The broad competing-explanation and audit-trail mechanisms substantially collide with ACH and OIG case management, but a narrower comparative claim remains: whether the municipal, action-limited adaptation produces more discriminating authorized probes and clearer ties and boundaries than ordinary intake or generic ACH. Those outcomes are observable in the proposed shadow review.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"No categorical stop is apparent because the proposed test is read-only, uses closed authorized records, changes no case or personnel decision, and reports only de-identified process findings. Access controls are consistent with existing OIG systems. Local counsel must still control privilege, public-record, discovery, retention, confidentiality, and emergency-preservation obligations; the court source also underscores that authority and probable cause cannot be replaced by an explanatory ranking.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The problem is visible but only partly established. SRC1 presents the precise ambiguity between alleged retaliation after protected petitioning and a documented routine enforcement explanation. SRC2 describes the general failure mode of favoring one explanation and overlooking alternatives, while SRC3 shows that the effectiveness of a commonly proposed matrix remedy is format-dependent. No retained source establishes the frequency or consequences of this failure specifically in municipal inspector-general intake.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","problem_evidence":{"finding":"A real municipal code-enforcement dispute shows that protected petitioning, later intensive inspections, and retaliation allegations can coexist with preexisting inspection plans and probable cause, making the hidden-cause ambiguity observable. General sources support the need to compare alternatives but do not establish prevalence, anchoring rates, or harm within municipal inspector-general intake.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P171","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:cia.gov \"Analysis of Competing Hypotheses\" matrix hypotheses evidence","site:ignet.gov investigation standards exculpatory evidence allegations preliminary inquiry inspector general","investigation hypothesis matrix alternative explanations disconfirming evidence case management","law enforcement investigation policy alternative hypotheses lines of enquiry official standard"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No exact combined municipal retaliation-signal explanation docket was located; results exposed the underlying legal ambiguity and adjacent analytic methods.","queries":["municipal code enforcement retaliation protected speech inspection complaint inspector general intake","selective code enforcement retaliation First Amendment inspections municipal official case","analysis of competing hypotheses matrix evidence inconsistency official guide","inspector general complaint intake retaliation allegation preliminary inquiry procedures"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["inspector general case management software allegation intake investigative plan evidence audit trail product","municipal inspector general investigation manual preliminary inquiry complaint intake PDF","law enforcement investigation policy alternative hypotheses lines of enquiry official standard","ombudsman complaint investigation matrix evidence allegations findings municipal"],"source_ids":["SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":"Searches found retaliation and selective-enforcement disputes, but no older named practice combining municipal oversight intake with ACH-style rival ranking.","queries":["retaliatory zoning enforcement petition speech municipal inspection case opinion","vindictive code enforcement city critic retaliation inspection court","selective enforcement code violations political retaliation protected activity municipal court","administrative harassment inspection retaliation citizen complaints city code enforcement"],"source_ids":["SRC1"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["A municipal code-enforcement target alleged that extensive inspections and enforcement followed protected petitioning and litigation.","The court instead found probable cause and emphasized that the inspection had been announced before the protected activity, illustrating a routine-enforcement rival and the importance of temporal provenance.","Legal authority and proof standards remain distinct from a provisional explanatory ranking."],"publisher":"New York State Unified Court System","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OTHER","title":"Village of Fairport v American Park Place, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 50959(U)","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_50959.shtml"},{"claims_supported":["ACH explicitly identifies reasonable competing explanations and compares each against the same evidence in a matrix.","ACH emphasizes diagnostic evidence, attempted disproof, sensitivity to critical evidence, comparative reporting, future indicators, and an audit trail.","The source warns that ACH still depends on fallible judgment applied to incomplete and ambiguous information."],"publisher":"Central Intelligence Agency, Center for the Study of Intelligence","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Psychology of Intelligence Analysis","url":"https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/9a5f1162fd0932c29bfed1c030edf4ae/Pyschology-of-Intelligence-Analysis.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["A 2024 experiment tested how alternative-hypothesis information structure affects confirmation bias.","With 161 participants, hypotheses in rows and evidence in columns reduced the measured confirmation-bias strategy, whereas the conventional ACH orientation did not.","The study cautions that matrix structure alone may not improve sensitivity to evidence credibility and supports an empirical shadow test rather than assumed benefit."],"publisher":"Springer Nature, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Effects of task structure and confirmation bias in alternative hypotheses evaluation","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-024-00560-y"},{"claims_supported":["A first-party OIG product already provides secure complaint intake, assignment, case notes, evidence tracking, configurable triage, supervisor oversight, and reporting.","The product maintains access-controlled evidence repositories, chain of custody, and audit trails for investigative actions.","Generic OIG case management overlaps the docket's controlled memo and logging functions but does not advertise structured rival-explanation comparison."],"publisher":"Casepoint","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"eCASE Investigations: OIG Case Management Software","url":"https://www.casepoint.com/products/government/ecase-investigations/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen establishes only that the proposal's core reasoning mechanism substantially overlaps established ACH and that its controlled-record features overlap existing OIG case management, while the exact municipal, action-limited combination was not located. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or absence of undiscovered policies, products, patents, internal municipal procedures, or differently worded prior art."}