{"actors":["Library governing board commissioning the explanation","Library director publicly credited or blamed for challenged-item outcomes","Collection-development librarians and selectors who assembled review files","Reconsideration committee members who evaluated challenges","Circulation, catalog, and systems staff who implemented temporary and final access states","Consortium administrators and digital-content vendors controlling shared records or licensed access","Municipal counsel and policy staff interpreting applicable rules","Patrons submitting challenges, patrons opposing restrictions, and users affected by access changes"],"affected_objective":"Produce a bounded explanation of why specified challenged items remained available, became temporarily restricted, or were withdrawn during one completed reconsideration cycle, so governance improvements address the choices, positions, procedures, technologies, and implementation mechanisms that carried each access state.","arm":"ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A board-designated records analyst may assemble a read-only chronology for three closed reconsideration cases from public agendas, adopted policies, challenge forms, review packets, votes, catalog-state histories, and implementation tickets; legal interpretations, interviews, access changes, and public attribution statements require separate authorization.","decision_authority":"The governing board retains authority over policy and any authorized access decision; designated review bodies retain their assigned recommendation authority; records custodians and counsel control protected records. The analyst may classify causal roles but may not decide a challenge, change access, interpret law, or assign praise, blame, liability, discipline, or compensation.","excluded_actions":["Do not treat the director's public visibility, title, statements, or meeting attendance as evidence of causal magnitude.","Do not reopen completed challenges or alter catalog, circulation, shelving, licensing, or discovery states.","Do not disclose patron identities, confidential legal communications, protected minor records, or personnel information.","Do not present actor-substitution or changed-policy counterfactuals as observed events.","Do not infer viewpoint, intent, misconduct, or legal responsibility from causal contribution."],"halt_rollback":"Stop if a case is not closed, protected records cannot be separated, the explanatory outcome changes during analysis, or the review could interfere with a pending proceeding. Quarantine derived notes, preserve the unmodified records, remove unauthorized protected fields, and resume only with written authorization and a fixed revised scope."},"baseline":"Public discussion compresses each challenged-item outcome into the library director's decision, while internal explanations sometimes treat the reconsideration policy or board vote as self-executing. Neither account distinguishes agenda setting, procedural interpretation, committee evaluation, interim handling, formal voting, consortium or vendor constraints, and staff implementation.","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__library_information_science__ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Fix the explanatory target for each closed case as the sequence of public access states from accepted challenge through final implementation within a stated review period, using the prior unchanged state as the comparison and governance learning as the sole intended use.","Record why the director became focal, separating formal position, spokesperson duties, source abundance, public attention, and any evidenced case-specific action.","Inventory challengers, opposing patrons, selectors, reviewers, board members, counsel, implementation staff, consortium administrators, vendors, and affected users; map the policy, bylaws, meeting calendar, quorum rules, licenses, shared systems, staffing, and legal constraints operating at each stage.","Trace dated actions and omissions through challenge validation, interim handling, evidence compilation, committee deliberation, recommendation, agenda placement, vote, catalog or circulation configuration, notification, and appeal.","Classify each contribution as initiation, interpretation, enabling, blocking, recommendation, authorization, execution, amplification, legitimation, or symbolic focality, while distinguishing powers of the position from choices of its occupant.","Align case-level events with system-level access logs and governance timelines to test whether formal decisions preceded implemented access states and whether aggregation hides delay, partial implementation, or platform-specific differences.","Run bounded actor probes involving director absence, delayed agenda placement, or a qualified alternative occupant under the same authority, and structural probes involving a different interim-access rule, quorum requirement, meeting schedule, consortium permission, or license constraint.","Compare director-led, board-led, procedure-led, mobilization-led, and implementation-led models; publish conditional contribution claims, conflicting evidence, counterfactual assumptions, uncertainty, responsibility limits, and triggers for review."],"cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__library_information_science","consequence":"A director-centered explanation can misidentify spokesperson activity as decision or execution, while a structure-only account can hide discretionary interpretation, agenda timing, coalition work, and implementation choices. Either compression can produce governance changes that fail to address the mechanisms responsible for an item's actual access state and can improperly convert causal focality into blame or legitimacy.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity concerns governance and implementation of challenged-material access decisions, not special-collections backlog discovery, metadata remediation, repository migration, staffing allocation, or credit for clearance work. Its intervention is a closed-case access-decision attribution ledger, and its causal path runs from challenge intake through review authority, voting, platform implementation, and appeal rather than from digitization through description, ingest, indexing, and retrieval.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Before revising reconsideration governance or attributing challenged-item outcomes to a named director, construct a versioned Challenged-Material Access Attribution Ledger for closed cases. The ledger fixes the access outcome and horizon, separates the focal occupant from the office, inventories distributed and affected actors, maps procedural and technical constraints, traces dated actions to access-state transitions, classifies causal roles, audits narrative visibility, tests bounded actor substitutions and structural changes, reconciles case and system evidence, and preserves alternative models, uncertainty, and responsibility boundaries.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the matrix, public statements, formal votes, procedural rules, and technical changes can be conflated despite carrying different causal roles at different times.","mechanism_slug":"actor_structure_evidence_matrix","role":"Cross-tabulates actors, positions, rules, resources, platforms, dated evidence, causal roles, and observed access-state transitions for each closed case."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without cross-level tracing, a recommendation or vote may be mistaken for the mechanism that changed physical, catalog, consortium, or licensed access.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_across_levels","role":"Follows the challenge from patron submission through staff validation, committee and board action, and platform-specific implementation to the user-visible state."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without substitution probes, authority attached to the director's office cannot be distinguished from the occupant's choices about interpretation, timing, communication, or coalition work.","mechanism_slug":"counterfactual_actor_substitution_probe","role":"Tests director absence, delayed action, and a qualified alternative occupant while holding information, formal powers, policy, and case timing constant."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without structural probes, an apparent personal effect may absorb the consequences of interim-access rules, quorum requirements, meeting schedules, licenses, or consortium controls.","mechanism_slug":"structural_constraint_relaxation_probe","role":"Varies one procedural, institutional, temporal, or technical condition at a time and records whether the traced actor contribution still plausibly reaches the access outcome."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the paired timeline, case narratives may obscure delays or divergences between deliberation, formal disposition, local implementation, and shared-platform behavior.","mechanism_slug":"paired_micro_macro_timeline","role":"Aligns case-level decisions and implementation events with board calendars, catalog histories, circulation configurations, and aggregate challenge reporting."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without focality auditing, spokesperson duties and public controversy can continue to serve as unstated proxies for decision authority and causal weight.","mechanism_slug":"narrative_focal_actor_audit","role":"Compares the director's visibility across minutes, news releases, and public comments with evidence of review, authorization, implementation, opposition, and affected-user roles."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without plural review, the ledger could replace one simplified account with another and suppress contradictions or responsibility limits.","mechanism_slug":"plural_causal_synthesis_review","role":"Retains director-led, board-led, procedure-led, mobilization-led, and implementation-led explanations with their evidence, sensitivities, conflicts, and review triggers."}],"nearest_rivals":["A policy-compliance audit determines whether required reconsideration steps were followed but need not attribute the outcome among individual choices, positional authority, collective action, and technical implementation.","A catalog transaction log identifies when an access flag changed but does not explain agenda control, review authority, actor replaceability, narrative focality, or structural dependence.","A narrative construction audit can show why the director became the public protagonist but cannot establish which actions initiated, authorized, blocked, or executed an access-state transition.","A legal review determines compliance or liability under applicable law; this ledger supplies bounded causal evidence and cannot replace legal standards or authorized counsel.","A collection-development review evaluates the merits of selection or retention decisions, whereas this intervention explains how a completed outcome was produced without reopening its substantive merits."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"Reject the ledger as decision-relevant if dated records cannot connect distinguishable actor actions or mapped conditions to access-state transitions, or if actor substitution, structural variation, and cross-platform tracing add no explanatory discrimination beyond the recorded final vote.","problem_falsifier":"The attribution problem is absent if existing closed-case records already fix the same outcome and horizon, distinguish person from position, include distributed and affected actors, trace actions through implementation, audit focality, bound actor and structural counterfactuals, preserve competing models, and separate causal explanation from legal or moral judgment.","risks":["Public records may overrepresent speakers and formal votes while underdocumenting staff interpretation, informal coordination, and implementation labor.","Protected patron or legal records may be necessary to understand timing but unavailable for the authorized analysis.","Catalog and vendor histories may not preserve every temporary access state.","Counterfactuals may assume unrealistic substitute knowledge, legitimacy, authority, or meeting availability.","Case selection may overrepresent unusually documented disputes and conceal routine procedural operation.","The synthesis may be repurposed to justify discipline, political claims, or renewed access decisions despite its stated boundary."],"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would show that a preexisting mandatory rule automatically determined every interim and final access state from the validated challenge category and recorded vote, that systems applied those states uniformly without discretionary interpretation or delay, and that the director took no case-specific action capable of altering timing, options, authorization, implementation, or public compliance."},"next_evidence_step":"For three completed cases with different final access states, the designated analyst will produce a read-only event table containing challenge acceptance, interim state, review milestones, recommendation, agenda placement, vote, appeal, local catalog changes, consortium or vendor changes, and public notification. Each entry will identify the acting person or body, formal position, authority source, evidence provenance, missing evidence, and observed state transition. Two probes will be preregistered: delayed director agenda action under unchanged rules and removal of the consortium's ability to apply the local decision. No interviews, renewed merits review, or access changes will occur.","observable_state":"For each selected closed case, existing records can reveal dated challenge acceptance, policy version, assigned reviewers, recommendations, agendas, votes, appeals, implementation tickets, and catalog or circulation state histories. Comparison of these records can show whether physical, local-catalog, consortium, and licensed access changed together or diverged, who acted at each transition, which authority or constraint applied, and which contributors were visible in the public account.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A library is considering governance changes after completed challenges to collection materials were publicly described as decisions of its director. The director may have interpreted procedure, controlled timing, coordinated participants, or served mainly as spokesperson, while review committees, the governing board, staff implementation, consortium systems, licenses, meeting rules, counsel, and patron mobilization may have enabled, constrained, authorized, delayed, or executed the observed access states. The library lacks a bounded causal account separating the occupant's actions from positional authority and distributed institutional mechanisms.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The ledger is warranted only if it distinguishes the director's evidenced choices from powers of the office and from review, board, patron, procedural, consortium, vendor, and staff mechanisms across specific access-state transitions; a compliance checklist, catalog history, or expanded list of participants alone would not instantiate the intervention.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Instantiate agency–structure attribution in challenged-material governance and access implementation.","Preserve person–position separation, distributed actors, causal-role timing, cross-scale tracing, narrative audit, bounded counterfactuals, alternative models, and responsibility limits.","Provide an observable first evidence step, authority boundaries, falsifiers, counterevidence, risks, and review conditions without asserting novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Target, Scope, and Use","domain_realization":"The target is the sequence of physical and digital access states for specified closed challenges from acceptance through final implementation or appeal, compared with the prior unchanged state and used only for governance learning."},{"archetype_element":"Focal Actor and Collective Inventory","domain_realization":"The publicly focal director is separated from challengers, opposing patrons, selectors, reviewers, board members, counsel, circulation and systems staff, consortium administrators, vendors, and affected users."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Condition and Path Map","domain_realization":"Reconsideration policy, bylaws, delegated authority, meeting schedules, quorum rules, legal constraints, licenses, shared catalogs, staffing, and inherited system configurations define the available paths."},{"archetype_element":"Agency Contribution Trace","domain_realization":"Dated interpretations, validations, recommendations, agenda choices, votes, communications, configuration changes, omissions, and appeals are linked to particular access-state transitions."},{"archetype_element":"Opportunity, Constraint, and Selection Map","domain_realization":"The director's office affords agenda and communication opportunities; committees and boards hold distinct review or voting powers; staff and platform operators control implementation; policies and licenses restrict feasible actions."},{"archetype_element":"Causal Role and Timing Classification","domain_realization":"Contributions are classified per stage as initiation, interpretation, enabling, blocking, recommendation, authorization, execution, amplification, legitimation, or symbolic focality."},{"archetype_element":"Evidence Provenance and Narrative Weighting Record","domain_realization":"Policies, forms, packets, minutes, votes, tickets, catalog histories, public statements, and any later-authorized testimony are recorded by origin, coverage, access restrictions, and narrative visibility."},{"archetype_element":"Counterfactual Actor Substitution Test","domain_realization":"Bounded probes compare absence, delay, or a qualified alternative director under the same information, authority, policy, platform, and case timing."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Counterfactual and Constraint Test","domain_realization":"Probes vary interim-access rules, quorum, meeting timing, delegated authority, consortium permissions, or license terms while retaining explicit assumptions and uncertainty."},{"archetype_element":"Cross-Scale Actor–Structure Interaction Map","domain_realization":"Patron and staff actions are linked through committee and board processes to local and shared-platform changes and then to the system-level account of challenged-material outcomes."},{"archetype_element":"Distributed and Background Actor Register","domain_realization":"Review labor, systems implementation, consortium administration, legal interpretation, organized support or opposition, and users experiencing access changes remain visible even when absent from public summaries."},{"archetype_element":"Attribution Uncertainty and Alternative Model Set","domain_realization":"Director-led, board-led, procedure-led, mobilization-led, and implementation-led accounts retain supporting evidence, contradictions, missing records, and sensitivity to counterfactual assumptions."},{"archetype_element":"Responsibility and Moralization Boundary","domain_realization":"Causal contribution cannot decide legal compliance, viewpoint, praise, blame, discipline, legitimacy, or whether a challenged item should be retained, restricted, or withdrawn."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned Attribution Synthesis and Review Rule","domain_realization":"The synthesis is versioned and reopened for newly released records, corrected access histories, additional participant evidence, altered intended use, or a challenge to its fixed outcome definition."}],"title":"Challenged-Material Access Attribution Ledger","version":0}