{"abstention_reason":null,"arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__law_governance__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__law_governance","decision":"PROPOSAL","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","proposal":{"actors":["Courthouse facilities and accessibility office","Court research office and independent evaluation team","Presiding housing-court judge who became the focal actor","Other consenting judicial officers serving as bounded substitutes","Courtroom clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, and legal-aid observers","Self-represented tenants and landlords represented by compensated mock-hearing participants","Acoustical engineer and human-factors specialist","Chief administrative judge and courthouse capital committee","Disability-access and procedural-fairness advisors"],"affected_objective":"Determine whether improved opportunities for self-represented housing litigants to hear, speak, and respond should be sustained primarily through hearing-room architecture and acoustics, through situated judicial practices, or through their interaction, without converting causal prominence into personnel judgment or legal responsibility.","arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The court research director and courthouse facilities director may jointly authorize a non-adjudicative pilot in an unused training courtroom using modular fixtures, calibrated instruments, scripted mock matters, consenting personnel, and compensated adult volunteers.","decision_authority":"The evaluation team may issue only a bounded attribution finding. The chief administrative judge retains authority over courtroom administration, the facilities authority over capital changes, individual judges over lawful conduct of actual hearings, and the legislature or authorized rulemaker over legal procedure and funding.","excluded_actions":["No use of live cases, actual litigant files, sealed material, or pending disputes","No alteration of adjudicative outcomes, hearing rights, courtroom assignment, or access to counsel or interpreters","No personnel ranking, discipline, reward, recusal decision, or public naming based on the pilot","No inference of bias, misconduct, liability, legitimacy, or judicial merit from causal contribution","No covert recording, biometric identification, emotion recognition, or automated scoring of participants","No permanent construction or installation during the pilot"],"halt_rollback":"Stop sessions, close the mock room, and return all movable partitions and acoustic treatments to their documented neutral configuration if emergency egress, accessibility, consent, confidentiality, or participant-safety conditions fail. Quarantine recordings and derived observations under the approved protocol; no operational courtroom change proceeds until the authorized safety or ethics reviewer clears the incident."},"baseline":"After participation indicators improved when housing hearings moved into a renovated room, public accounts credited the presiding judge's conversational style. The court is considering replicating that style across judges or preserving parts of the renovation, but existing observations confound the occupant of the bench with room geometry, speaking distance, reverberation, sightlines, entry sequence, interpreter placement, clerk positioning, and the distributed work that makes turns intelligible.","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__law_governance__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["The coincidence of a visible judge, a renovated hearing room, and improved participation makes the judge narratively focal while leaving person, position, distributed execution, and material setting confounded.","A temporary full-scale mock courtroom recreates the old and renovated spatial conditions with movable partitions, measured speaking distances, controlled sightlines, reversible acoustic absorption, and fixed locations for the bench, parties, clerk, interpreter, and public seating.","Calibrated sound sources, speech-transmission meters, reverberation measurements, physical sightline gauges, and observer checks establish whether each configuration materially changes what participants can hear and see before any actor effect is inferred.","Scripted mock housing matters hold legal issues, ruling sequence, time allowance, and participant instructions constant while consenting judicial facilitators cross over between room configurations.","The physical configuration changes audibility, visual orientation, interpersonal distance, and turn-transition cues; these conditions can enable or suppress requests for clarification, timely responses, correction of misunderstandings, and completion of an offered speaking turn.","Actor-substitution comparisons test whether participation differences follow the judicial facilitator when geometry is fixed, while structural-relaxation comparisons test whether they follow the room when the facilitator and script are fixed.","Clerk, interpreter, bailiff, and participant observations are classified separately from judicial initiation, coordination, legitimation, and symbolic focality, preventing the bench occupant from absorbing distributed execution.","A bounded synthesis identifies judge-dependent, room-dependent, interaction-dependent, and unresolved mechanisms, allowing authorized officials to select a facilities response, an administrative response, or further study without treating the experiment as a responsibility finding."],"cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__law_governance","consequence":"The court gains physically grounded evidence about whether procedural participation depends on a particular judge, the authority and routines of the judicial position, the material hearing environment, or an interaction among them. Capital and administrative choices can then target the mechanism that persists across substitutes while preserving adjudicative independence and responsibility boundaries.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity differs materially from P1's retrospective benefits-appeal timeliness attribution docket. It addresses oral participation in housing hearings, intervenes through a reversible full-scale spatial and acoustic reconstruction, and tests a causal path from physical audibility, sightlines, distance, and turn cues to participant action rather than tracing directives through staffing, docket stages, technology releases, and appellate constraints.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Construct a reversible, instrumented mock hearing room that can alternate between the former and renovated courtroom geometries. Cross consenting judicial facilitators over both configurations while keeping mock-case scripts and formal powers fixed. Use calibrated acoustic and sightline instruments plus direct observation to distinguish material-environment effects, occupant choices, positional effects, distributed implementation, and actor–room interactions. Publish only a bounded attribution synthesis with declared counterfactual assumptions, rival models, uncertainty, and responsibility limits.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the matrix, a visible judicial utterance and the room conditions that made it audible and answerable would collapse into a single personal-style explanation.","mechanism_slug":"actor_structure_evidence_matrix","role":"Cross-tabulates facilitator actions, positional powers, clerk and interpreter acts, room configuration, measured physical exposures, participation events, timing, and uncertainty."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without substitution, improvement that follows the judicial position or room could be mistaken for a unique personal effect merely because one judge occupied the bench during the renovation.","mechanism_slug":"counterfactual_actor_substitution_probe","role":"Compares consenting judicial facilitators under the same script, authority, participant roles, and physical configuration to bound occupant replaceability."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without physical relaxation of the room conditions, acoustics and geometry would remain bundled with the focal judge and could only be discussed speculatively.","mechanism_slug":"structural_constraint_relaxation_probe","role":"Reversibly changes absorption, distance, orientation, sightlines, and actor placement while holding the facilitator and mock matter constant."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without controlled crossed cases, either the judge or the renovation could appear decisive from a single before-and-after sequence even when their interaction produces the effect.","mechanism_slug":"comparative_case_attribution_test","role":"Uses facilitator-by-configuration crossover comparisons to distinguish person, position, material setting, and interaction-dependent pathways."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a focality audit, public visibility at the bench could outweigh the causal work of room designers, clerks, interpreters, bailiffs, and responding parties.","mechanism_slug":"narrative_focal_actor_audit","role":"Compares later credit and source visibility with observed initiation, enabling, execution, maintenance, and symbolic roles."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without plural review, one convenient explanation could prematurely justify construction, standardized judicial conduct, or reputational conclusions despite mixed effects.","mechanism_slug":"plural_causal_synthesis_review","role":"Retains judge-led, position-led, room-led, distributed-practice, selection, and actor–room interaction models and specifies observations that favor or weaken each."}],"nearest_rivals":["A conventional courtroom-acoustics inspection measures intelligibility and code compliance but does not test whether a focal judge's situated choices remain consequential under actor and structural substitution.","A judicial performance review evaluates conduct or competence under an authorized standard; this proposal estimates conditional causal contribution and cannot determine merit, discipline, bias, or liability.","A procedural-justice survey records participant perceptions but does not physically separate room effects from occupant, position, and distributed implementation effects.","A universal-design project directly improves accessibility but need not explain the historically observed participation change or preserve rival actor–structure accounts."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"Reject the intervention's claimed attribution value if the two reversible configurations cannot produce reliably distinguishable acoustic or sightline exposures, if facilitator identity cannot be crossed independently of configuration and script, or if observers cannot reliably identify predefined participation events without inferring case merits.","problem_falsifier":"The attribution problem is absent if the participation change began before the focal judge or renovation, occurs equally in materially different rooms and with different facilitators, or is not being used to choose between person-centered and structure-centered governance responses.","risks":["Mock participants may not behave like litigants facing real housing consequences.","Room reconstruction may imperfectly reproduce crowding, stress, mobility aids, interpreter use, or ambient courthouse noise.","Facilitator crossover may create learning or order effects.","Acoustic improvement could be mistaken for proof of substantive fairness or comprehension.","Accessibility needs may vary in ways obscured by aggregate observations.","Findings could be repurposed for judicial evaluation or used to justify premature capital spending.","Recording or observation could chill consenting court personnel despite the non-evaluative design."],"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would be contemporaneous records showing that participation improved in several acoustically and spatially dissimilar rooms only when the focal judge presided, together with pilot measurements showing no meaningful configuration effect and a reproducible facilitator effect under fixed physical conditions."},"next_evidence_step":"In one unused training courtroom, create two reversible configurations and verify their contrast with calibrated reverberation, speech-transmission, distance, and sightline measurements. Then run no more than 12 scripted mock hearings using two consenting judicial facilitators, 24 compensated adult participants, counterbalanced configuration order, manual event coding by two independent observers, and a prespecified stop after the crossed comparison and uncertainty table are complete.","observable_state":"A completed pilot contains dimensioned layouts for both configurations; calibration records; measured reverberation, speech transmission, distance, and sightline contrasts; a facilitator-by-configuration assignment table; manually coded opportunities to speak, missed prompts, clarification requests, response latency bands, and completed turns; separate person, position, distributed-actor, and material-condition fields; order-effect checks; missing-observation flags; rival causal models; uncertainty bounds; and an express disclaimer of merits, responsibility, and personnel conclusions.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A housing court must decide what to preserve after self-represented litigants began completing more offered speaking turns and requesting clarification more often during the tenure of a prominent presiding judge in a renovated hearing room. Public narratives credit the judge's personal style, while staff disagree about whether the change came from situated judicial choices, the authority of the bench, clerk and interpreter practices, or material conditions such as shorter speaking distances, reduced reverberation, clearer sightlines, and different actor placement. A person-centered response could standardize judicial behavior unnecessarily; a structure-centered response could fund ineffective construction while erasing a genuine turning-point choice.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal remains useful only if the crossed mock-hearing evidence can distinguish at least one materially mediated participation pathway from an occupant-dependent pathway while preserving a plausible interaction model and leaving all legal, personnel, and adjudicative judgments to their authorized processes.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Create a second opportunity whose problem, intervention, and causal path are materially independent of the sealed benefits-appeal proposal.","Make physical spatial conditions and measurement instrumentation essential to the attribution contrast.","Preserve actor–position separation, distributed agency, bounded substitution, structural relaxation, alternative models, uncertainty, and responsibility limits.","Define a small, reversible first experiment outside live adjudication."]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Target, Scope, and Use","domain_realization":"The fixed target is completion of offered speaking turns and clarification behavior during scripted housing-hearing exchanges, used only to inform facilities and court-administration choices."},{"archetype_element":"Focal Actor and Collective Inventory","domain_realization":"The presiding judge is recorded alongside substitute judicial facilitators, clerks, bailiffs, interpreters, parties, legal-aid observers, designers, facilities staff, and accessibility advisors."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Condition and Path Map","domain_realization":"Bench authority, hearing sequence, room geometry, reverberation, speaking distance, sightlines, actor placement, interpreter location, entry order, and accessibility conditions define the situated option set."},{"archetype_element":"Agency Contribution Trace","domain_realization":"Questions, pauses, invitations to speak, interruptions, clarifications, clerk cues, interpretation acts, and participant responses are linked to timed physical and procedural conditions rather than personality labels."},{"archetype_element":"Opportunity, Constraint, and Selection Map","domain_realization":"Formal bench authority and assignment to the renovated room are separated from the occupant's discretionary use of pauses, prompts, orientation, and clarification within that setting."},{"archetype_element":"Causal Role and Timing Classification","domain_realization":"Observed contributions are classified as initiating, enabling, constraining, coordinating, executing, maintaining, legitimating, or symbolizing at specific hearing exchanges."},{"archetype_element":"Counterfactual Actor Substitution Test","domain_realization":"Two consenting facilitators conduct the same mock sequence under the same room configuration, authority script, and participant-role constraints."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Counterfactual and Constraint Test","domain_realization":"The same facilitator and script are repeated after reversible changes to absorption, distance, orientation, sightlines, and role placement."},{"archetype_element":"Cross-Scale Actor–Structure Interaction Map","domain_realization":"Instrument readings and exchange-level behavior are related to session-level participation patterns without treating either physical exposure or a vivid utterance as sufficient alone."},{"archetype_element":"Evidence Provenance and Narrative Weighting Record","domain_realization":"Public praise, judicial statements, staff recollections, instrument readings, observer records, and participant reports retain separate provenance and do not receive weight solely from visibility."},{"archetype_element":"Distributed and Background Actor Register","domain_realization":"Clerk timing, interpreter positioning, bailiff movement, participant correction, facilities work, and accessibility support remain explicit causal candidates."},{"archetype_element":"Attribution Uncertainty and Alternative Model Set","domain_realization":"Judge-led, room-led, position-led, distributed-practice, selection, and interaction models remain available with mock-hearing validity limits."},{"archetype_element":"Responsibility and Moralization Boundary","domain_realization":"The synthesis cannot establish judicial quality, bias, misconduct, legal error, liability, entitlement, or deservingness."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned Attribution Synthesis and Review Rule","domain_realization":"Operational replication, contrary accessibility evidence, changed courtroom use, or attempted personnel reuse triggers fresh authorization and review."}],"substrate_contract":{"counterfactual_independence":"Removing software, algorithms, databases, information routing, training, incentives, and governance wrappers does not erase the essential contrast: modular material geometry and acoustic treatment still alter sound propagation, distance, orientation, and sightlines, while calibrated physical instruments still measure those changes. Administrative protocols only authorize and bound the experiment.","forbidden_channel_audit":"No algorithm selects cases, controls the room, scores behavior, or generates the causal effect; no database or model substitutes for measured sound and geometry; no rule, incentive, training package, or organizational process is claimed to improve participation by itself. Manual assignment and coding support interpretation but are not the intervention's essential effect.","primary_allowed_process":"MEASUREMENT_INSTRUMENTATION"},"title":"Instrumented Hearing-Room Reconstruction for Judge–Architecture Attribution","version":0},"schema_version":1}