{"actors":["Critical-edition general editor","Volume editor and textual scholars","Focal novelist","Periodical editor","Publisher and production staff","Compositors and proofreaders","Censors or house-policy reviewers","Correspondents and early readers whose feedback reached the novelist","Later critics and biographers","Students and readers of the new edition"],"affected_objective":"Produce an edition introduction and apparatus that explain the causes of the novel's documented structural revisions without treating either authorial intention or publishing conditions as sufficient by themselves.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The volume editor may conduct a read-only pilot using facsimiles or transcriptions of one manuscript segment, its serial installment, the corresponding first-edition pages, and directly associated correspondence and production records.","decision_authority":"The critical-edition general editor retains authority over interpretive claims and publication; archive custodians control access and reproduction; the attribution dossier supplies evidence but does not decide credit, blame, copyright, or canon status.","excluded_actions":["Do not alter archival descriptions or source transcriptions.","Do not infer private motives from textual differences alone.","Do not assign numerical causal shares.","Do not treat hypothetical substitutions as observed events.","Do not use the dossier by itself to determine legal authorship, copyright, moral blame, honors, or curricular removal.","Do not publish claims about named production workers without checking provenance and applicable privacy or archival restrictions."],"halt_rollback":"Pause the pilot if variant alignment is materially disputed, provenance cannot distinguish manuscript from later annotation, or restricted records would be exposed. Withdraw the affected attribution entries, preserve the source citations and dispute log, and revert the introduction to a descriptive variant account pending review."},"baseline":"The introduction centers the novelist's intentions, while production constraints and other contributors appear in separate textual notes. Variants are cataloged, but no shared model assigns stage-specific roles, distinguishes the novelist from the authorial position, or tests actor and structural counterfactuals.","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["Serial deadlines, installment length, house policy, available production technology, and the novelist's contractual position define an uneven but non-singleton set of feasible revisions.","The publisher and periodical editor select which proposals reach proof, while correspondence and reader response alter the information available to the novelist.","The novelist interprets those conditions and chooses, rejects, delays, or initiates particular changes to sequence, focalization, pacing, and closure.","Editors, compositors, and proofreaders execute or modify instructions, sometimes producing textual effects not reducible to the initiating decision.","Publication distributes the resulting version, whose reception can prompt further authorial and editorial revision for the volume edition.","Surviving letters, corrected proofs, biographies, and later criticism make the named novelist more narratively visible than distributed production actors.","The edition's author-centered synthesis converts that visibility into broad causal attribution, obscuring which effects depended on individual choices, positional authority, implementation, or institutional constraints.","A versioned evidence matrix, paired timeline, and bounded counterfactual probes separate those roles and support a conditional attribution account with explicit uncertainty."],"cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"Readers may mistake a collaboratively and institutionally mediated textual form for either unconstrained authorial design or mechanical structural determination. This distorts interpretation of specific formal features and can convert causal prominence into unsupported judgments about artistic credit or authority.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"The candidate is internally differentiated by focusing on stage-specific causal attribution across manuscript, serial, proof, and volume states, with reciprocal tests of author substitution and production-constraint change; no comparison with prior proposals was performed under runtime isolation.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a Versioned Production Attribution Dossier for one disputed sequence of the novel. Fix the outcome as the sequence's change in ordering, focalization, pacing, and closure from manuscript through serial and first volume edition. Align dated variants with correspondence and production records; inventory authorial, editorial, compositorial, regulatory, and reader-feedback actors; classify each supported contribution as initiating, enabling, constraining, selecting, executing, amplifying, blocking, or legitimating; map how the novelist's formal position supplied authority and how particular choices used or resisted it; and record source visibility separately from causal evidence. Test bounded alternatives involving another plausible author-position occupant, absent or delayed authorial instructions, relaxed installment limits, changed house policy, and unchanged production conditions. Publish only a conditional synthesis that preserves competing models and separates textual causation from artistic praise, legal authorship, and curricular authority.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the matrix, authorial instructions, institutional constraints, and implementation changes collapse into an undifferentiated account of revision.","mechanism_slug":"actor_structure_evidence_matrix","role":"Cross-tabulates each documented variant with the acting party, production condition, date, evidence provenance, causal role, and textual effect."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without cross-level tracing, local marks could be attributed directly to either intention or structure without showing how decisions became printed text.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_across_levels","role":"Traces a proposed change from manuscript or correspondence through editorial approval, proof correction, production execution, and published form."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without substitution probes, the dossier could not distinguish effects of the novelist's particular choices from powers available to any plausible occupant of the same contractual position.","mechanism_slug":"counterfactual_actor_substitution_probe","role":"Tests bounded scenarios involving another suitably situated novelist, absence of an instruction, or delayed response while holding documented production conditions fixed."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without constraint relaxation, apparently personal choices could be overstated when installment length, censorship, cost, or deadline rules shaped the feasible set.","mechanism_slug":"structural_constraint_relaxation_probe","role":"Tests whether the attributed textual effect remains plausible when one documented production constraint is relaxed while other conditions are held explicit."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without paired timelines, later commentary or volume revisions could be projected backward onto decisions made under earlier information and constraints.","mechanism_slug":"paired_micro_macro_timeline","role":"Aligns word- and passage-level variants with publication schedules, contract stages, editorial exchanges, and reception events."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the focality audit, abundant authorial papers and later biography could continue to stand in for causal magnitude.","mechanism_slug":"narrative_focal_actor_audit","role":"Separates archival survival, name recognition, and later commemoration from evidence that a specific action produced a specific variant."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without plural review, one intentionalist or production-determinist account could close the inquiry despite unresolved evidence.","mechanism_slug":"plural_causal_synthesis_review","role":"Compares author-led, editor-mediated, production-constrained, and execution-emergent explanations and states their residual uncertainties and responsibility limits."}],"nearest_rivals":["Genetic criticism that reconstructs the sequence of drafts and revisions but does not necessarily test actor replaceability or structural relaxation.","Material bibliography and book-history analysis centered on production conditions without a stage-specific account of authorial choice.","Intentionalist close reading that explains variants primarily through the novelist's inferred design.","Reception history that traces reader response and later interpretation without attributing how the contested printed form was produced.","A narrative-construction audit that identifies author-centered storytelling and omitted workers without estimating their causal roles."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for the pilot if independent editors cannot use its entries to distinguish at least two rival causal models because the records do not connect any contested variant to a dated action, production condition, or implementation step; the result should then remain a descriptive variant record.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is absent for the selected sequence if the existing edition already distinguishes source visibility from causal evidence, includes distributed production actors, assigns stage-specific roles, preserves rival models, and bounds both actor and structural counterfactuals.","risks":["Sparse or elite-preserved archives may reproduce the asymmetry the dossier is meant to expose.","Variant alignment may mistake compositorial error or later annotation for intentional revision.","Counterfactuals may exceed the competence, authority, timing, or coalition actually available to plausible substitutes.","A detailed actor inventory may imply equal causal importance where only visibility has been equalized.","The synthesis may be reused as a verdict on artistic merit, legal authorship, or moral deservingness.","Micro-level process evidence may be overgeneralized to the whole novel or literary period."] ,"strongest_counterevidence":"Corrected proofs, dated letters, and consistent manuscript instructions may show that the novelist specified the contested ordering and wording before the cited deadline, policy, or reader-feedback pressures arose, while production records show faithful execution without substantive editorial alteration."},"next_evidence_step":"Select one sequence of no more than three manuscript leaves or equivalent transcription units that changed across a serial installment and first volume edition. During a single pilot, align those three states, inspect only directly linked correspondence and production annotations, build the actor–structure matrix, and have two edition-team reviewers independently classify each supported change. Stop after the pilot and record disagreements, missing actors, provenance gaps, and whether actor-substitution and one-constraint-relaxation probes are evidentially bounded.","observable_state":"For a defined novel sequence, manuscript, serial, proof, and volume states contain traceable differences in order, focalization, pacing, or closure. The draft introduction attributes these differences broadly to the novelist, while correspondence, production annotations, installment rules, and typographic evidence identify additional decisions, constraints, and execution steps whose causal roles are not integrated.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A critical-edition team preparing an account of a serialized novel's revised ending must decide how to explain documented changes from manuscript through serial publication to the first volume edition. The working account treats the novelist as the unitary cause, while a competing production-history account treats installment limits and publisher rules as determinative. Neither explains which situated choices initiated or resisted changes, how editorial and compositorial work carried them into print, or which effects depended on position, timing, and reader feedback.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For a bounded, versioned passage, the dossier can support a more discriminating causal statement than variant reconstruction, production history, intentionalist reading, or focality audit alone because it requires both action-to-text process evidence and reciprocal, assumption-labeled tests of actor substitution and structural change; it does not establish artistic merit, legal authorship, or causal shares.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial candidate; no parent claims were revised."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial candidate maps agency–structure attribution to the production history of a serialized novel's disputed sequence."],"evidence_changes":["No external or prior-art evidence was searched; the proposed evidence classes are bounded archival inputs for a future pilot."],"operational_changes":["Initial candidate defines a read-only, three-state passage pilot with independent role classification and explicit stop conditions."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete domain problem and affected objective","Observable actor and structural state","Stage-specific intervention and causal chain","Structural and mechanism mappings with removal tests","Baseline, rivals, and bounded contrastive claim","Authority boundaries, rollback conditions, falsifiers, risks, and first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Target, Scope, and Use","domain_realization":"The fixed target is why one ending sequence changed in ordering, focalization, pacing, and closure across manuscript, serial, and first volume states, for use in a critical-edition introduction."},{"archetype_element":"Focal Actor and Collective Inventory","domain_realization":"The novelist is analyzed alongside periodical and volume editors, publisher staff, compositors, proofreaders, censors, correspondents, early readers, and later critics."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Condition and Path Map","domain_realization":"Installment length, deadlines, house policy, contract authority, printing technology, censorship, distribution, prior draft commitments, and reception form the changing opportunity and constraint set."},{"archetype_element":"Agency Contribution Trace","domain_realization":"Dated instructions, corrections, acceptances, refusals, delays, and execution choices are linked to particular textual variants rather than personality descriptions."},{"archetype_element":"Opportunity, Constraint, and Selection Map","domain_realization":"The map separates authority attached to the novelist's contractual position from the occupant's particular use of that authority and from the publisher's control of access to print."},{"archetype_element":"Causal Role and Timing Classification","domain_realization":"Each supported contribution is classified by stage as initiating, enabling, constraining, selecting, blocking, executing, amplifying, or legitimating."},{"archetype_element":"Counterfactual Actor Substitution Test","domain_realization":"A plausible substitute is constrained to the same contract, information, deadline, editorial relationship, and available proof-correction opportunities."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Counterfactual and Constraint Test","domain_realization":"One documented condition, such as installment length or house policy, is varied while the novelist's evidenced preferences and other conditions remain explicit."},{"archetype_element":"Cross-Scale Actor–Structure Interaction Map","domain_realization":"Word- and passage-level revisions are connected to editorial exchanges, production workflow, publication schedules, reader response, and volume-level form."},{"archetype_element":"Evidence Provenance and Narrative Weighting Record","domain_realization":"Authorial manuscripts, publisher files, corrected proofs, biographies, and later criticism are tagged by survival, genre, proximity, and focalizing tendency separately from causal support."},{"archetype_element":"Responsibility and Moralization Boundary","domain_realization":"Claims about producing textual features are kept separate from artistic praise, blame, copyright, canonization, and curricular decisions."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned Attribution Synthesis and Review Rule","domain_realization":"The edition maintains a versioned, conditional account reopened by newly available proofs, correspondence, variant reclassification, or a new consequential use."}],"title":"Versioned Production Attribution Dossier for a Serialized Novel","version":0}