{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Social-text and textual-agency approaches","overlap":"Treat textual production as collaborative and contingent, extending attention beyond authorial intention to publishers, typesetters, readers, material conditions, and the actions of contributors across a text's life cycle.","remaining_difference":"The retained synthesis does not specify a passage-level actor–structure evidence matrix, separate archival visibility from causal support, or require reciprocal actor-substitution and structural-constraint counterfactuals.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"MLA vetting practice plus the TEI critical-apparatus model","overlap":"Require provenance, composition and publication histories, recoverable earlier forms, detailed reporting of changes by authors, scribes, and compositors, structured variant witnesses, responsible hands, sources, and uncertainty.","remaining_difference":"These practices support reconstruction and responsibility metadata but do not themselves classify stage-specific causal roles, test actor replaceability or constraint relaxation, or preserve competing causal models through a defined review rule.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},{"name":"Fitzwilliam Museum's Jude the Obscure manuscript–serial–proof record","overlap":"Provides a concrete serialized-novel case linking an autograph manuscript, sanitized serial publication, author-annotated volume proofs, publisher conditions, censorship, and comments by a printer's reader.","remaining_difference":"It is an evidentiary object record rather than a reusable attribution dossier, and it does not conduct reciprocal counterfactual tests or distinguish source visibility from causal magnitude.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified for the bounded pilot if two independent edition-team reviewers cannot use documented action-to-text links plus one actor-substitution and one constraint-relaxation probe to distinguish at least two rival causal models, or if a close existing workflow is found that already performs this complete bundle for passage-level revisions.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For one bounded, versioned passage, the proposed dossier may add a testable layer beyond established apparatus, genetic reconstruction, and social-text analysis by requiring dated action-to-text process evidence, explicit stage-specific causal roles, separation of archival visibility from causal support, and reciprocal assumption-labeled tests of actor substitution and structural constraint change.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, social-text/genetic/fluid-text terminology, current scholarly-edition standards and digital practices, a concrete serialized-novel production record, and combinations involving causal attribution and counterfactual probes. Exactly four opened direct sources from four publishers were retained, including official guidance and an official standard. Exact-phrase misses were not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A read-only pilot limited to no more than three transcription units, three version states, directly linked records, two independent reviewers, and one probe of each counterfactual type is finite and yields explicit disagreement and provenance outcomes. MLA vetting questions provide relevant collation, independent-checking, provenance, and production-review precedents.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The retained prior art covers structured variants, multiple responsible agents, production history, and social textual agency, but none of the opened sources requires the proposal's combined passage-level causal-role matrix and reciprocal actor/structure counterfactual tests. Reviewer discrimination between rival models supplies a falsifiable outcome.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The authorized step is read-only and confined to existing facsimiles or transcriptions and directly associated records. General-editor and custodian authority is preserved, publication and legal judgments are excluded, and the proposal includes provenance, restriction, dispute, withdrawal, and rollback conditions. MLA guidance independently flags permissions and assigned production responsibility.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The problem is visible at field and case levels: current scholarship describes author-centered editing as historically sidelining material and social production while social-text theory recognizes multiple agencies; MLA guidance separately demands histories and accounts of changes by authors, scribes, and compositors; the Jude record demonstrates serial sanitization, later restoration, author annotations, and a printer-reader's comments. The specific unnamed edition's deficient draft introduction was not independently verified, so support is partial rather than complete.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"Public sources support the existence of the proposed explanatory tension and show a concrete serialized-novel record with authorial, regulatory, publishing, and production evidence. Established standards already expect integrated variant and actor reporting, but the supplied claim that a particular draft introduction remains unitary-author-centered cannot be checked without identifying that edition and passage.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P174","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No direct result was found combining passage-level causal-role classification with both actor-substitution and structural-constraint-relaxation probes; this bounded miss is not evidence of novelty.","queries":["\"counterfactual\" \"genetic criticism\" author editor textual revision","\"causal\" \"textual variants\" author publisher compositor scholarly edition","critical edition production attribution matrix author editor compositor causal roles","scholarly edition \"actor substitution\" \"constraint relaxation\" textual revision"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"The exact proposal title produced no direct match; adjacent standards, theory, and a concrete serialized-novel record were found, so the phrase miss was not treated as novelty evidence.","queries":["\"Versioned Production Attribution Dossier\" serialized novel","critical edition production attribution matrix author editor compositor causal roles","serialized novel manuscript serial volume edition revisions editor publisher proofs textual history"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["critical edition guidelines scholarly editions textual apparatus authorial intention production agents versions MLA","site:mla.org scholarly edition guidelines production variants author intervening editors","TEI critical apparatus witnesses hand source responsibility","digital genetic edition timeline manuscript proofs correspondence revision scholarly project"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["social text theory textual criticism collaborative production author publisher compositor McGann scholarly editing","genetic criticism manuscript variants process tracing publication correspondence proofs","material bibliography sociology of texts multiple agencies textual production","fluid text digital scholarly edition versions revision history"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Scholarly-edition vetting should assess provenance, composition and revision history, publication history, recoverability of preceding forms, and detailed changes made by authors, scribes, compositors, and others.","Independent checking, collation sampling, permissions, assigned production responsibility, and proof-stage controls are established review concerns."],"publisher":"Modern Language Association","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Guiding Questions for Vetters of Scholarly Editions","url":"https://apps.mla.org/pdf/guidelinesform.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Critical apparatuses can encode variants across authorial manuscripts and printed witnesses in a highly structured form.","TEI distinguishes the physical witness, the responsible inscribing hand or agent, and the scholarly source asserting a reading, with mechanisms for responsibility and uncertainty.","TEI deliberately leaves selection of text-critical methodology to editors."],"publisher":"Text Encoding Initiative Consortium","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"TEI P5 Guidelines, Chapter 13: Critical Apparatus","url":"https://guidelines.tei-c.de/en/html/TC.html"},{"claims_supported":["Historically author-centered scholarly editing often sidelined material and social dimensions of textual production.","Social-text theory broadened scholarly editing to multiple agencies including publishers, typesetters, and readers and introduced textual agency across the text's life cycle.","Critical apparatus, documentary, genetic, social-text, and digital-edition practices constitute substantial adjacent prior art, while incomplete evidence and editorial subjectivity remain recognized limitations."],"publisher":"Cambridge University Press & Assessment","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","title":"Digital Scholarly Editing in Practice: Excerpt","url":"https://assets.cambridge.org/97810093/64331/excerpt/9781009364331_excerpt.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Jude the Obscure moved from sanitized serial publication to a first book edition whose proofs Hardy used to restore and elaborate the text.","The surviving proofs contain extensive authorial annotations and comments from printer's reader George F. Stewart and can be compared with the autograph manuscript.","The record exposes interacting authorial, publishing, censorship, and production evidence in a serialized-novel revision history."],"publisher":"The Fitzwilliam Museum","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OTHER","title":"Publisher's proofs for the first book edition of Jude the Obscure, annotated by the author","url":"https://data.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/id/object/184870"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This four-source public-web screen establishes only that the proposal is researchable and adjacent to established scholarly-editing, social-text, genetic, and critical-apparatus practices. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; unindexed editions, books, archival finding aids, dissertations, non-English literature, and paywalled implementations may contain closer matches."}