{"abstention_reason":null,"arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","candidate_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__literature_literary_theory__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","cell_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__literature_literary_theory","decision":"PROPOSAL","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","proposal":{"actors":["Manuscript conservator responsible for the artifact","Imaging technician operating the measurement bench","Textual scholar or editor interpreting the material traces"],"affected_objective":"Establish a defensible provisional account of a manuscript leaf's production sequence and disputed wording without damaging the artifact or treating a plausible material history as proven authorial revision.","arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"After the conservator approves an exposure budget, the technician may cradle one leaf and acquire a bounded series of non-contact observations using transmitted, raking-angle, and wavelength-filtered illumination plus low-power microscopy; only reversible research annotations may follow.","decision_authority":"The conservator controls handling, illumination, and termination of measurement; the textual editor controls provisional transcription; neither the bench nor its operator may determine authorship, intention, authenticity, or canonical status.","excluded_actions":["Destructive ink, pigment, paper, or parchment sampling","Erasing, lifting, wetting, flattening, separating, or otherwise altering manuscript layers","Exceeding the conservator-approved illumination dose or handling plan","Changing a critical edition solely from the working material explanation","Presenting layer order as proof of who made a change or why"],"halt_rollback":"Stop illumination and return the leaf to conservation custody if mounting shifts, surface change, heating, unexpected fluorescence decay, or another conservation concern appears. Withdraw dependent transcription if repeat measurement contradicts the selected layer sequence or leaves the candidates tied."},"baseline":"Visible-light inspection and palaeographic judgment in which a faint stroke, overwritten word, bleed-through mark, or abraded region is transcribed directly and its production history inferred from apparent shape without independent physical contrasts among layers.","candidate_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__literature_literary_theory__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["A manuscript leaf contains a ghost stroke, crossing line, erased word, or displaced mark whose visible appearance supports more than one production history.","The conservator mounts the leaf on a non-contact cradle, and the technician records the location and visible trace before interpreting it.","Controlled transmitted light, raking-angle light, wavelength-filtered illumination, and low-power microscopy direct photons through or across the ink and writing surface.","Ink, substrate fibers, abrasion, relief, and underlying or reverse-side marks respond differently through absorption, reflection, fluorescence, transmission, and shadow.","These physical responses reveal reproducible crossings, layer discontinuities, fiber disturbance, or spectral contrasts that unaided inspection did not supply.","The scholar compares original overwrite, later annotation, reverse-side bleed-through or offset, and abrasion or restoration as candidate explanations for the measured trace.","A candidate becomes the working explanation only if it covers the spatial, spectral, and topographic observations better than its nearest rival; otherwise the result remains an unresolved tie.","The leading explanation generates a location-specific prediction for a repeat illumination angle, wavelength band, adjacent stroke, or reverse-side observation.","Failure of that physical prediction, non-reproducible contrast, or a conservation complication reopens the explanation and prevents dependent editorial change."],"cell_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"A visually plausible but incorrect layer history can create a false transcription, misclassify damage as revision or annotation as authorial text, and propagate an unsupported account of composition or transmission into editions and literary interpretation.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"P1 addresses semantic attribution of narrative perspective within an intact passage through a documentary comparison docket. This proposal addresses the physical production history of a manuscript artifact, intervenes with controlled optical measurement, and reaches a working explanation through material responses and layer-specific traces rather than through diction, deixis, contextual reading, or edition-discussion structure.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Install a conservation-bounded Spectral-Stratigraphy Bench for disputed manuscript layers: a cradle, fixed-angle illumination geometry, transmitted-light stage, interchangeable wavelength filters, exposure reference, and low-power optical microscope. The bench creates new physical evidence by eliciting differential optical and topographic responses from inks and writing substrates. A simple observation card then keeps those measured responses separate from candidate production histories, records the best-so-far account or tie, and specifies a second physical observation capable of defeating the leader. Cameras and software may document the view, but neither image processing nor automated classification is required for the effect.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without controlled multi-angle and multi-band optical measurement, the intervention supplies no new layer-sensitive physical trace and collapses back to ordinary visual judgment.","mechanism_slug":"forensic_scenario_reconstruction","role":"Uses measured crossings, spectral contrasts, surface relief, and substrate disturbance to reconstruct competing sequences by which the present manuscript trace could have formed."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded differential, the most visually salient story can become the only account considered even when bleed-through, damage, or later annotation remains plausible.","mechanism_slug":"differential_diagnosis_workup","role":"Keeps original overwrite, later annotation, reverse-side transfer, and abrasion or restoration live until measurements materially distinguish them."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without explicit comparison, a scholar can favor palaeographic familiarity while ignoring contradictory spatial or material measurements.","mechanism_slug":"inference_to_best_explanation_matrix","role":"Compares candidates for coverage of optical bands, stroke crossings, topography, substrate disturbance, neighboring marks, temporal feasibility, and ad hoc exceptions."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a predicted repeat observation, an attractive layer history can absorb every newly visible mark and become self-sealing.","mechanism_slug":"disconfirming_probe_plan","role":"Names a safe wavelength, angle, reverse-side view, or adjacent location whose possible outcomes would weaken the working explanation or elevate a rival."}],"nearest_rivals":["Unaided palaeographic or codicological inspection under ordinary visible light, which may recognize letterforms but does not deliberately elicit multiple material contrasts","Computational enhancement or automated segmentation of a single scan, whose essential contrast would depend on algorithms rather than new physical measurements","Destructive ink or substrate sampling, which may provide chemical evidence but violates the proposed non-contact authority boundary","Collation with later witnesses, which can support a preferred wording without resolving how the disputed physical layers on the focal leaf were produced"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"On a leaf with a genuinely disputed material trace, the intervention fails if blinded observers cannot reproduce the claimed optical or topographic contrasts at the recorded geometry, or if removing all digital processing leaves no directly observable measurement that distinguishes any candidate histories.","problem_falsifier":"The proposed problem is absent if conservation inspection shows a single undamaged writing layer with an unambiguous letter sequence, stable visible-light transcription, and no plausible alternative production history that would change editorial treatment.","risks":["Even bounded illumination can contribute to cumulative photochemical damage.","Mounting or changing illumination geometry can stress a fragile leaf.","Different inks may have indistinguishable responses in the available bands.","A spectral contrast can distinguish materials without establishing their chronological order.","Scholars may overinterpret apparent layer order as evidence of author, date, or intention.","Reference standards or uneven illumination may create spurious contrasts."],"strongest_counterevidence":"If ordinary conservation-approved visual examination already yields a reproducible transcription and layer order, while added angles and wavelength bands produce no stable material contrast, the bench adds exposure and complexity without improving abductive discrimination."},"next_evidence_step":"With conservator approval, examine one institution-owned leaf already cleared for non-contact imaging and containing one documented disputed crossing or erased mark. Record the visible-light reading first, then acquire only four prespecified observations: frontal visible light, transmitted light, one raking angle, and one conservation-approved filtered band. Have two observers independently record raw visible responses and rank the four candidate histories without digital enhancement. Repeat the single most discriminating geometry once; stop immediately after reproducibility and conservation checks.","observable_state":"At a precisely located region of one manuscript leaf, ordinary light shows an incomplete, crossed, faint, or displaced stroke. Before explanation, the record contains only its dimensions, orientation, color, visible overlap, surface condition, recto-verso location, and the reproducible changes observed under each approved illumination geometry and band.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"When a manuscript word or mark appears overwritten, erased, transferred, or damaged, editors may need to infer which physical sequence produced the surviving trace before deciding what belongs in the text. Unaided appearance can fit several histories—original correction, later annotation, reverse-side bleed-through or offset, and abrasion or restoration—yet a compelling visual reading is easily mistaken for a settled account of composition or transmission.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Unlike P1's organization of already legible textual evidence, this proposal's essential claim is that controlled photon–material interaction can create new, reproducible evidence about manuscript strata; abductive selection then remains warranted only to the extent that those physical measurements discriminate among rival production histories.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial second-slot candidate; no earlier version of this proposal was revised."],"conceptual_changes":["Shifted the domain target from interpretation of narrative perspective to forensic reconstruction of a manuscript artifact's physical production sequence.","Made non-contact optical and topographic measurement, rather than an interpretive record or workflow, the primary causal substrate."],"evidence_changes":["No external literature, repository material, other cells, or prior experiments were consulted.","The sealed P1 was used only for the required independence comparison."],"operational_changes":["Specified a bounded four-observation trial with a repeatability check, exposure authority, and no dependence on digital enhancement."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Materially independent problem, intervention, and causal path","Measurement-instrumentation substrate with digital-wrapper independence","Direct observation separated from inferred production history","Bounded candidate set and explicit explanatory comparison","Defeasibility, conservation authority, and rollback triggers","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Single-leaf next evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Surprising observation and explanandum boundary","domain_realization":"One located manuscript region contains a crossing, ghost, erased, or displaced mark; the bounded question is which physical production sequence generated it."},{"archetype_element":"Observation–interpretation separation","domain_realization":"Geometry, color, relief, transmission, fluorescence, and band-specific visibility are recorded as measurements; overwrite, annotation, transfer, and damage remain separate explanations."},{"archetype_element":"Candidate explanation set","domain_realization":"Original overwrite or revision, later annotation, reverse-side bleed-through or offset, and abrasion or restoration are preserved as materially different histories."},{"archetype_element":"Explanatory fit comparison","domain_realization":"Candidate histories are compared against stroke crossings, wavelength response, surface topography, fiber disturbance, neighboring marks, temporal feasibility, and required exceptions."},{"archetype_element":"Best-so-far explanation or plurality state","domain_realization":"A production sequence is selected only when it materially outperforms its nearest rival across reproducible measurements; otherwise the disputed reading remains tied."},{"archetype_element":"Defeasibility status","domain_realization":"The result is labeled a working material reconstruction that may guide reversible transcription notes but cannot establish author, intention, authenticity, or canonical status."},{"archetype_element":"Discriminating evidence plan","domain_realization":"The leader must predict a response at a prespecified wavelength, illumination angle, adjacent stroke, or reverse-side location that differs from the nearest rival's prediction."},{"archetype_element":"Revision trigger and action–confidence boundary","domain_realization":"Non-reproducible contrast, a failed layer prediction, newly observed substrate damage, or conservation concern reopens the ranking and blocks permanent editorial change."}],"substrate_contract":{"counterfactual_independence":"Remove cameras, image-processing software, databases, scoring algorithms, automated registration, and digital control: a conservator can still place the leaf in the fixed cradle, select filters and illumination geometries manually, and directly observe differential transmission, reflection, fluorescence, and relief through the optical microscope. Those material responses retain the intervention's essential discriminating effect.","forbidden_channel_audit":"Governance supplies conservation permission and editorial action limits; procedure standardizes exposure and recording; software may archive images. None generates the layer contrast. The essential evidence arises only from controlled light interacting with ink, fibers, surface relief, and manuscript strata, followed by optical measurement.","primary_allowed_process":"MEASUREMENT_INSTRUMENTATION"},"title":"Spectral-Stratigraphy Bench for Disputed Manuscript Layers","version":0},"schema_version":1}