{"actors":["Literary-historiography project lead","Bibliographers and reception historians","Focal critic associated with the poet's revival","Earlier editors and advocates of the poet","Review editors and book reviewers","Anthology editors","Publishers and reprint-series editors","University instructors and syllabus committees","Librarians and collection curators","Students and general readers","Competing critics and opponents of canonization","The earlier poet whose reception is being studied"],"affected_objective":"Produce a bounded literary-historical explanation of the poet's movement from limited circulation to sustained curricular and critical attention without treating either the focal critic's advocacy or institutional canon-making channels as sufficient by itself.","arm":"ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The project lead may conduct a read-only pilot on one bounded interval using dated reviews, anthology tables of contents, reprint records, syllabi or course catalogs, correspondence already cleared for research, and citation records associated with the focal critic and other advocates.","decision_authority":"The literary-historiography project lead approves explanatory claims; archive custodians and rights holders control access and reproduction; instructors, publishers, libraries, and cultural institutions retain authority over curricula, editions, acquisitions, exhibitions, and commemorative decisions.","excluded_actions":["Do not alter catalogs, finding aids, bibliographic records, or archival metadata.","Do not infer private motives from publication or citation sequences alone.","Do not equate mentions, citations, sales, or syllabus appearances with a single causal mechanism.","Do not assign numerical causal shares to the critic, institutions, or other actors.","Do not present actor substitutions or institutional counterfactuals as observed history.","Do not use the attribution synthesis by itself to confer or withdraw canon status, honors, royalties, legal rights, or curricular placement.","Do not reproduce restricted correspondence or student records without the relevant authorization."],"halt_rollback":"Pause if work identities cannot be disambiguated, dates cannot distinguish prior advocacy from later commemoration, or restricted records would be exposed. Withdraw affected causal entries, retain a provenance and dispute log, and revert to a descriptive reception chronology until the evidence can be reviewed."},"baseline":"The prevailing project outline organizes the revival around the focal critic's landmark essay, while anthologies, reprints, teaching networks, libraries, earlier advocates, and competing interpretations appear as background chronology. It does not distinguish symbolic focality from initiation, transmission, selection, implementation, or reinforcement.","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory__ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Copyright status, edition availability, publishing economics, anthology conventions, university curricula, critical vocabularies, and library holdings shape which works can be encountered and taught during the bounded interval.","Earlier editors, reviewers, and instructors preserve or recirculate parts of the poet's work, creating paths that may predate the focal critic's intervention.","The focal critic interprets the poet through a portable critical frame and uses essays, lectures, correspondence, or editorial relationships to advocate particular works and valuations.","Reviewers, anthology editors, publishers, instructors, and librarians select, translate, contest, or operationalize that framing through reviews, reprints, excerpts, courses, and collections.","Those institutional adoptions expose additional readers and critics to the poet, while opposition and alternative framings alter which works and attributes become representative.","Later retrospectives compress the distributed sequence around the focal critic's memorable essay or persona, increasing narrative prominence independently of any specific transmission step.","A dated actor–structure map separates initiation, brokerage, selection, execution, legitimation, resistance, and symbolic focality across critical, publishing, curricular, and collection settings.","Bounded actor-substitution and structural-relaxation probes support a conditional account of which pathways depended on the critic's particular actions, the occupied position, inherited advocacy, or institutional access."],"cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"Literary history may misdescribe how critical attention became durable, erase earlier advocates and institutional implementers, and treat a memorable critic either as the sole maker of reputation or as irrelevant to an automatic process of canon formation. The resulting account can also convert causal prominence into unsupported cultural authority.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity concerns the institutional circulation and canonization of an earlier poet across criticism, publishing, libraries, anthologies, and teaching. Its affected problem is retrospective attribution of a revival, its intervention is a cross-site reception-pathway analysis, and its causal path runs from advocacy through institutional selection and reader exposure rather than from manuscript decisions through serial production and textual revision.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a Canonical Revival Attribution Map for one poet, one claimed revival interval, and one defined transition in critical and curricular attention. Establish a dated baseline before the focal critic's landmark intervention; inventory earlier advocates, rival critics, editors, publishers, anthologists, instructors, librarians, and reader communities; and trace how particular evaluative claims, work selections, and interpretive frames moved through essays, reviews, reprints, anthologies, courses, and collections. Classify supported contributions as initiating, preserving, brokering, selecting, executing, legitimating, resisting, amplifying, or symbolizing. Map how the critic's editorial, academic, or network position created access and how the critic's particular choices used that access. Compare the observed sequence with bounded scenarios involving no landmark intervention, a plausible alternative advocate in the same position, delayed institutional uptake, different anthology or syllabus rules, and unchanged edition availability. Publish a versioned synthesis that separates source and commemorative visibility from causal support, preserves rival models, and disclaims authority over merit or canon status.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the matrix, a critic's advocacy, inherited availability, institutional selection, and later commemoration would remain compressed into the single label of revival.","mechanism_slug":"actor_structure_evidence_matrix","role":"Cross-tabulates dated advocacy acts, institutional conditions, intermediaries, causal roles, evidence provenance, and observed reception-pathway changes."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without cross-level tracing, temporal proximity between a landmark essay and later teaching or reprinting could be mistaken for a demonstrated transmission mechanism.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_across_levels","role":"Follows a supported interpretive claim or work selection from the critic or another advocate through editorial, publishing, anthology, library, and classroom decisions."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without position mapping, influence attached to journal access, academic office, correspondence networks, or anthology control could be attributed wholly to personal critical authority.","mechanism_slug":"network_and_institutional_position_map","role":"Distinguishes access and brokerage supplied by positions and networks from the focal critic's choices about which works, frames, and allies to mobilize."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without substitution probes, the account could not test whether a similarly situated advocate might have activated the same channels or whether the focal critic supplied a less replaceable framing or coalition.","mechanism_slug":"counterfactual_actor_substitution_probe","role":"Tests absence, delay, and a plausible alternative advocate while holding documented access, available editions, prevailing vocabularies, and institutional rules explicit."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without structural relaxation, the analysis could overstate personal advocacy where reprint eligibility, anthology policies, library access, or curricular rules governed uptake.","mechanism_slug":"structural_constraint_relaxation_probe","role":"Varies one bounded institutional condition and asks whether the evidenced advocacy-to-adoption path remains plausible under the altered opportunity set."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without aligned timelines, earlier preservation work could be assigned to a later visible critic, or later commemoration could be projected backward as original influence.","mechanism_slug":"paired_micro_macro_timeline","role":"Aligns individual essays, letters, reviews, selections, and teaching decisions with broader sequences of editions, anthologies, courses, collections, and retrospective accounts."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the focal-actor audit, source abundance and repeated retelling could continue to serve as proxies for causal contribution.","mechanism_slug":"narrative_focal_actor_audit","role":"Compares the critic's archival and commemorative visibility with evidence for specific acts of initiation, transmission, selection, or legitimation and records omitted contributors."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without plural review, either a critic-made-the-canon model or an institutionally-automatic model could become the sole account despite unresolved pathways.","mechanism_slug":"plural_causal_synthesis_review","role":"Compares critic-led, inherited-advocacy, publishing-access, curricular-selection, and distributed-reception models while preserving uncertainty and responsibility boundaries."}],"nearest_rivals":["Reception history that chronicles changing evaluations and readership without testing the replaceability of a focal advocate or the conditionality of institutional uptake.","Canon-formation analysis centered on curricula, anthologies, and institutions without tracing the stage-specific actions of critics and intermediaries.","Influence study that follows a critic's language or judgments into later criticism but treats access conditions and distributed implementation as background.","Bibliometric or syllabus-count analysis that measures appearances without establishing the mechanisms connecting advocacy to selection.","Narrative-construction audit that explains why the revival is told through one critic but does not attribute contributions across the reception pathway."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for the pilot if dated records cannot connect any advocacy act or institutional condition to a subsequent selection, transmission, contestation, or adoption step, leaving the proposed map unable to discriminate among critic-led, inherited-advocacy, and institution-led models.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is absent for the selected interval if the existing literary history already distinguishes commemorative visibility from causal evidence, identifies earlier and distributed contributors, traces advocacy through specific institutional decisions, tests bounded actor and structural alternatives, and preserves rival explanations.","risks":["Surviving correspondence and elite journals may obscure informal teaching, reading groups, libraries, and advocates outside universities.","Bibliographic appearance may be mistaken for attentive reading, endorsement, or causal transmission.","Work-title ambiguity, reprints, pseudonyms, and undated syllabi may create false sequences.","Counterfactual substitutes may lack the focal critic's actual access, credibility, vocabulary, or coalition relationships.","Equalizing visibility across actors may be misread as asserting equal causal importance.","A bounded interval may omit slower reputation changes before or after the pilot.","The synthesis may be reused as a judgment of literary merit or as authority for curricular inclusion or exclusion."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Dated reprints, anthology selections, course adoptions, and favorable reviews may show a continuous expansion before the focal critic's landmark intervention, while correspondence and editorial records show that later selectors acted through established advocates or availability channels without encountering or relying on the critic's framing."},"next_evidence_step":"Choose one five-year interval spanning the focal critic's landmark intervention and one work by the poet that later became representative. Build a read-only timeline from a bounded set of dated reviews, editions, anthology selections, course records, and directly linked correspondence; identify the earliest supported transmission path into one anthology or course; and have two reviewers independently classify the roles of the focal critic, prior advocates, and institutional selectors. Stop after testing one actor-substitution scenario and one institutional-condition change, recording provenance gaps and classification disagreements.","observable_state":"Within a bounded reception interval, a landmark essay by a named critic is repeatedly cited as the moment an earlier poet was revived. Dated reprints, reviews, anthology selections, library acquisitions, course records, and traces of earlier advocacy show multiple possible pathways into sustained attention, but the current literary history does not connect those pathways to classified actors, positions, institutional conditions, or bounded counterfactuals.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A literary-historiography project attributes the revival and later canonical standing of an earlier poet primarily to one critic's landmark essay, while an opposing account treats publishing and university institutions as sufficient engines of canon formation. The project cannot yet explain whether the critic initiated a new evaluative frame, brokered an existing one, accelerated institutional uptake, became a later symbol of distributed work, or acted through opportunities created by editions, journals, anthologies, libraries, and curricula.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For a bounded poet, interval, and reception pathway, the map can support a more discriminating attribution than reception chronology, canon-formation analysis, influence study, appearance counts, or narrative audit alone because it requires action-to-institution process evidence plus reciprocal, assumption-labeled tests of advocate substitution and structural change; it does not determine literary merit or rightful canon status.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial second-slot candidate; no prior proposal claims were revised."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial candidate maps agency–structure attribution to the claimed critical revival and institutional canonization of an earlier poet."],"evidence_changes":["No external or prior-art evidence was searched; all named evidence classes are prospective inputs to a bounded pilot."],"operational_changes":["Initial candidate defines a read-only reception-pathway pilot limited to one work, one interval, one institutional adoption path, and two bounded counterfactual probes."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Independent domain problem and affected objective","Observable actor, network, and institutional state","Cross-site intervention and materially distinct causal path","Archetype-preserving structural and mechanism mappings","Baseline, rivals, and bounded contrastive claim","Authority boundaries, rollback, falsifiers, risks, and next evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Target, Scope, and Use","domain_realization":"The target is the transition in critical and curricular attention to one poet during a fixed interval, compared with a dated pre-intervention baseline and used only for literary-historical explanation."},{"archetype_element":"Focal Actor and Collective Inventory","domain_realization":"The focal critic is analyzed alongside earlier advocates, editors, reviewers, publishers, anthologists, instructors, librarians, opponents, students, and readers."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Condition and Path Map","domain_realization":"Edition availability, copyright status, journal access, publishing economics, anthology conventions, curricular rules, library holdings, critical vocabularies, and inherited advocacy define changing opportunities and constraints."},{"archetype_element":"Agency Contribution Trace","domain_realization":"Essays, lectures, recommendations, editorial choices, correspondence, selections, adoptions, and resistance are linked to dated transmission or institutional decisions rather than to the critic's reputation or personality."},{"archetype_element":"Opportunity, Constraint, and Selection Map","domain_realization":"The map separates access attached to academic, editorial, and network positions from the focal critic's choices of works, interpretive frames, allies, and publication channels."},{"archetype_element":"Causal Role and Timing Classification","domain_realization":"Contributions are classified by stage as initiating, preserving, brokering, selecting, executing, legitimating, resisting, amplifying, or symbolizing."},{"archetype_element":"Evidence Provenance and Narrative Weighting Record","domain_realization":"Essays, correspondence, catalogs, anthologies, syllabi, reviews, memoirs, and later literary histories are tagged by date, genre, survival, institutional origin, and commemorative tendency separately from causal support."},{"archetype_element":"Counterfactual Actor Substitution Test","domain_realization":"A substitute advocate is bounded by the same available editions, institutional access, prevailing critical vocabulary, timing, and plausible network position."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Counterfactual and Constraint Test","domain_realization":"One condition such as reprint availability, anthology policy, journal access, library acquisition, or curricular rule is changed while evidenced advocacy choices and other conditions remain explicit."},{"archetype_element":"Cross-Scale Actor–Structure Interaction Map","domain_realization":"Individual acts of reading and advocacy are connected to editorial decisions, publishing programs, anthology selection, classroom adoption, collection access, and later literary-historical consolidation."},{"archetype_element":"Distributed and Background Actor Register","domain_realization":"Earlier editors, librarians, instructors, reviewers, publishers, students, informal reading communities, and opponents remain visible even when their records are less abundant than the focal critic's archive."},{"archetype_element":"Attribution Uncertainty and Alternative Model Set","domain_realization":"Critic-led, inherited-advocacy, availability-led, curricular-selection, and distributed-reception models are retained with conflicting evidence and counterfactual assumptions."},{"archetype_element":"Responsibility and Moralization Boundary","domain_realization":"Causal contribution to renewed attention remains separate from literary merit, rightful canon status, honors, royalties, blame, and curricular authority."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned Attribution Synthesis and Review Rule","domain_realization":"The synthesis is reopened when earlier advocacy records, course evidence, publishing files, or a new consequential use changes the supported reception pathway."}],"title":"Canonical Revival Attribution Map for a Rediscovered Poet","version":0}