{"abstention_reason":null,"arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory","decision":"PROPOSAL","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","proposal":{"actors":["Focal oral poet or lead singer","Tradition-competent substitute performers","Chorus members or designated responders","Community cultural authority or repertoire custodian","Performance-studies literary scholar","Acoustician","Voice-safety specialist","Consenting listeners","Archive or recording custodian"],"affected_objective":"Produce a bounded literary-theoretical explanation of why one oral-epic passage uses particular formulaic substitutions, line lengths, caesural pauses, refrains, and response timings, distinguishing performer-specific choices from the physical opportunities and constraints of unamplified performance.","arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The acoustician may conduct a performer-free calibration using a loudspeaker, acoustic manikin, sound-level meter, and movable absorptive panels to determine whether the mock venue can reproduce the target reverberation, audibility gradient, and ambient-noise range without exceeding approved sound levels or using protected repertoire.","decision_authority":"The community cultural authority controls whether repertoire may be performed or recorded; each performer controls participation and withdrawal; the voice-safety specialist controls exposure limits; the literary-study lead may publish only bounded causal interpretations approved under the applicable consent and cultural-use terms.","excluded_actions":["Do not expose performers or listeners to sound pressure, vocal loading, heat, crowding, or session duration beyond approved limits.","Do not reproduce restricted or culturally protected material without explicit authorization.","Do not present the mock venue as an authentic reconstruction when its geometry or materials are uncertain.","Do not use acoustic or respiratory measurements to rank artistic merit, intelligence, authenticity, or cultural status.","Do not infer historical intention from a modern performer’s response alone.","Do not treat participant substitution as proof that any historical performer was dispensable.","Do not alter archival recordings, transcripts, or community metadata."],"halt_rollback":"Stop immediately for vocal strain, participant distress or withdrawal, unsafe sound levels, cultural-authority objection, or failure of the chamber to reach its preregistered acoustic tolerances. Return movable panels and audience positions to baseline, delete any recording whose consent was withdrawn, quarantine the affected run from analysis, and retain only permitted calibration and incident records."},"baseline":"The passage is interpreted from its transcript and surviving recording through stylistic close reading, oral-formulaic analysis, and biography of the celebrated performer. Repetition and timing are attributed either to individual virtuosity or to inherited tradition without physically testing whether venue acoustics, ambient noise, breath limits, audience distance, or choral response made some formal choices more effective than others.","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Venue volume, surface absorption, audience distance, ambient noise, and the absence of amplification physically determine reverberation, masking, and the spatial decay of an oral performance.","Respiratory capacity and vocal loading limit how long and forcefully a performer can sustain phrases while preserving intelligibility across that acoustic field.","Within those material constraints, the focal performer chooses among available formulas, pauses, repetitions, pitches, and calls; chorus members and listeners reinforce, interrupt, or fail to recover those choices.","Repeated performance in the calibrated mock venue yields simultaneous physical measurements of sound propagation and respiratory effort plus manually observable changes in wording, lineation, pausing, refrain use, and response timing.","Holding the acoustic field fixed while substituting comparably situated performers reveals which formal effects recur because of the position and conditions and which remain associated with the focal performer’s particular choices.","Holding the performer and passage fixed while changing absorption, noise, or audience distance reveals which formal effects appear or disappear when a physical constraint is relaxed.","Combining both contrasts supports a conditional attribution: performer agency selects and exploits formal options, while acoustic and biomechanical conditions enable, constrain, or amplify their effects without dictating a single realization.","The resulting synthesis replaces both genius-only and tradition-as-fate explanations while retaining uncertainty about how closely the reconstruction represents the historical performance."],"cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"Without the test, criticism may mistake forms that maintain audibility, breath recovery, or collective synchronization for unconstrained personal invention, or erase genuine performer improvisation by treating every recurrence as automatic tradition. Either error distorts accounts of poetic form, authorship, transmission, and distributed performance agency.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Unlike sealed P1’s archival attribution of manuscript-to-print revisions in a serialized novel, this proposal addresses formal choices produced during embodied oral performance. Its intervention is a physical acoustic reconstruction with performer and spatial substitutions, and its causal path runs through sound propagation, respiratory loading, listener recovery, and live formal selection rather than contracts, editorial approval, typesetting, proofs, and publication states.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Construct an adjustable full-scale acoustic mock-up for one documented oral-epic performance setting using movable absorptive and reflective surfaces, controlled audience distance, and a bounded ambient-noise source. After performer-free calibration, invite the focal performer and at least two tradition-competent substitutes to perform the same four-to-six-minute narrative unit without amplification under a fixed acoustic condition, then have each repeat it under two physical changes: reduced reverberation and reduced masking or listener distance. Use calibrated microphones, sound-level meters, direct reverberation measurements, non-invasive respiratory monitoring, and listener intelligibility checks to align physical conditions with formula choice, phrase length, caesura, repetition, refrain, and response timing. Compare actor substitution while holding the physical field fixed and structural relaxation while holding performer and passage fixed. Publish only condition-sensitive and performer-sensitive findings, not causal shares or claims of complete historical reenactment.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without measured acoustic and respiratory entries, the study would revert to interpreting formal patterns from a transcript or recording without observing their physical performance conditions.","mechanism_slug":"actor_structure_evidence_matrix","role":"Cross-tabulates each formula, pause, refrain, and response with performer, acoustic condition, spatial intelligibility, respiratory load, timing, and observed formal effect."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without tracing across levels, a local repetition could be assigned directly to either individual style or tradition without showing how breath, sound transmission, listener recovery, and collective response carried it into the performed form.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_across_levels","role":"Traces performer choice through vocal production, room propagation, listener audibility, chorus response, and the resulting continuation or repair of the passage."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without fixed-field performer substitution, recurring effects could not be separated from the focal performer’s distinctive selection and timing.","mechanism_slug":"counterfactual_actor_substitution_probe","role":"Compares the focal performer with tradition-competent substitutes under the same passage, audience geometry, noise, and acoustic field."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without physical relaxation of reverberation, masking, or distance, inherited convention could continue to be treated as the only structural explanation even when material performance conditions alter the feasible choices.","mechanism_slug":"structural_constraint_relaxation_probe","role":"Changes one measured spatial or energetic constraint while keeping the performer, passage, and other conditions fixed."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without synchronized timing, respiratory peaks and acoustic failures could be projected onto the wrong formal decision or audience response.","mechanism_slug":"paired_micro_macro_timeline","role":"Aligns word-level and breath-group events with room-level sound decay, masking intervals, listener recovery, and chorus participation."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without threshold analysis, the study could report a vague environmental influence without locating moments when a small physical change makes a performer’s choice unusually consequential.","mechanism_slug":"turning_point_opportunity_analysis","role":"Identifies audibility or breath thresholds at which repetition, pause, refrain, or call-and-response restores continuation."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without plural review, acoustic correlation could displace rather than balance intentional, traditional, mnemonic, social, and material explanations.","mechanism_slug":"plural_causal_synthesis_review","role":"Compares performer-led, tradition-led, acoustic-constraint, respiratory-constraint, and collective-response models and states their evidential limits."}],"nearest_rivals":["Oral-formulaic analysis that identifies repeated compositional units but does not physically manipulate performance constraints or substitute performers.","Ethnopoetics that preserves lineation, pause, voice, and audience interaction without isolating acoustic and actor counterfactuals.","Performance studies that interprets embodiment, venue, and co-presence qualitatively without calibrated structural relaxation.","Acoustic phonetics that measures voice and intelligibility but does not classify literary causal roles or distinguish performer from position and tradition.","Biographical criticism that treats the focal performer’s reputation or remembered virtuosity as evidence of causal magnitude."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention’s proposed leverage is falsified if preregistered changes in reverberation, masking, and listener distance are physically achieved yet neither the focal performer nor substitutes show reproducible changes in audibility repair, respiratory loading, formula selection, pausing, repetition, refrain, or response timing beyond ordinary within-performer variation.","problem_falsifier":"The attribution problem is absent for the selected passage if existing analysis already distinguishes performer-specific action from inherited repertoire and physical conditions, includes chorus and listener roles, and demonstrates that the relevant acoustic and respiratory measures remain far from thresholds capable of affecting the observed forms.","risks":["A modern mock venue may poorly represent the materials, crowd density, weather, or geometry of the documented setting.","Contemporary substitutes may not share the focal performer’s repertoire, status, age, vocal technique, or relationship with listeners.","Sensors, repeated trials, and observation may change breathing or improvisation.","Acoustic effects may explain immediate intelligibility without explaining the historical origin of a formula.","Restricted repertoire or recordings may be used outside community expectations if consent boundaries are unclear.","A small passage may not generalize to the performer’s corpus or the wider tradition.","Apparent structural sensitivity may arise from fatigue or order effects rather than the manipulated condition."],"strongest_counterevidence":"The same formula, caesural pattern, and refrain timing may remain stable across performers and across archival performances in materially different venues, while dated testimony or teaching records identify the focal performer’s deliberate formal innovation; in the reconstruction, large verified acoustic changes may alter intelligibility without altering the performed form."},"next_evidence_step":"After the performer-free calibration and all cultural, ethics, and voice-safety approvals, run one counterbalanced pilot on a four-to-six-minute authorized passage with the focal performer and two substitutes. Use one calibrated baseline and two single-variable physical conditions, cap repetitions according to voice-safety limits, and have two literary analysts independently annotate formula, pause, repetition, refrain, and response changes before seeing performer identities. Stop after the pilot to assess acoustic fidelity, participant burden, annotation agreement, and whether both substitution and constraint-relaxation contrasts are interpretable.","observable_state":"In the selected oral-performance case, a celebrated lead performer is credited with a passage’s memorable formulas, pauses, refrains, and audience coordination, while a competing account assigns them wholesale to inherited convention. The recording and transcript preserve the form, but existing interpretation does not integrate venue reverberation, ambient masking, audience distance, respiratory effort, substitute performers, chorus action, or listener recovery into a stage-specific causal account.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Literary critics explaining the formal organization of a documented oral-epic performance oscillate between attributing its formulaic variation and dramatic timing to a renowned performer’s singular artistry and treating those features as automatic products of oral tradition. Neither account tests how the performer’s choices interacted with the physical acoustic field, respiratory limits, chorus responses, and listener distance, so personal agency, inherited position, collective execution, and material constraint remain conflated.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For a bounded oral passage, crossed physical-condition and performer substitutions can distinguish formal effects that are condition-sensitive from those that remain performer-sensitive. Transcript-only oral-formulaic analysis, qualitative performance interpretation, acoustic measurement alone, and biography do not jointly provide that contrast; the test still cannot establish exact historical causation, artistic merit, or numerical causal shares.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial second-slot candidate; it does not revise or extend any claim in sealed P1."],"conceptual_changes":["Moves the archetype from textual revision and publishing workflow to embodied oral poetics, treating performer choice and physical acoustic structure as interacting causes."],"evidence_changes":["Introduces future physical measurements of sound propagation, respiratory loading, and listener intelligibility; no external literature or prior proposals were searched."],"operational_changes":["Defines a performer-free calibration followed, only after approvals, by a bounded counterbalanced pilot crossing performer substitution with two physical constraint relaxations."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Materially independent affected problem, intervention, and causal path","Primary physical, energetic, spatial, and measurement substrate","Reciprocal actor-substitution and structural-relaxation tests","Observable state and bounded literary objective","Authority, cultural-use, voice-safety, halt, and rollback boundaries","Falsifiers, counterevidence, risks, rivals, and next evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Target, Scope, and Use","domain_realization":"The target is the production of formula choice, phrase length, caesura, repetition, refrain, and response timing within one four-to-six-minute oral-epic passage, for a bounded literary account rather than an authenticity or merit judgment."},{"archetype_element":"Focal Actor and Collective Inventory","domain_realization":"The renowned performer is analyzed alongside substitute performers, chorus members, listeners, repertoire custodians, teachers, and the people who arranged or documented the performance."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Condition and Path Map","domain_realization":"Inherited formulas, performer role, venue geometry, surface absorption, ambient noise, audience distance, respiratory capacity, call-and-response convention, and prior teaching define the changing option set."},{"archetype_element":"Agency Contribution Trace","domain_realization":"Observable selections, substitutions, pauses, projections, repetitions, repairs, and invitations to respond are linked to measured physical conditions and immediate performance effects rather than personality labels."},{"archetype_element":"Opportunity, Constraint, and Selection Map","domain_realization":"The analysis separates options available to any competent lead performer from the focal performer’s particular exploitation or resistance of acoustic, respiratory, and conventional constraints."},{"archetype_element":"Causal Role and Timing Classification","domain_realization":"Performer, chorus, listeners, tradition, venue, and respiratory limits are classified by moment as initiating, enabling, constraining, selecting, executing, amplifying, blocking, repairing, or legitimating."},{"archetype_element":"Evidence Provenance and Narrative Weighting Record","domain_realization":"Recordings, transcripts, field notes, biographies, community memory, instrument traces, and experimental annotations are tagged separately for proximity, survival, focality, and causal support."},{"archetype_element":"Counterfactual Actor Substitution Test","domain_realization":"Tradition-competent substitutes perform the same passage in the same calibrated field, bounding claims about what belongs to the role, repertoire, or focal performer."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Counterfactual and Constraint Test","domain_realization":"Absorption, masking, or listener distance is changed one factor at a time while performer, passage, and remaining conditions are held fixed."},{"archetype_element":"Cross-Scale Actor–Structure Interaction Map","domain_realization":"Word and breath-group choices are connected to room-scale propagation, listener recovery, chorus synchronization, passage continuation, and wider conventional form."},{"archetype_element":"Distributed and Background Actor Register","domain_realization":"Chorus members, listeners, teachers, repertoire custodians, venue builders, recordists, and transcribers remain visible rather than being absorbed into the lead performer or an actorless tradition."},{"archetype_element":"Attribution Uncertainty and Alternative Model Set","domain_realization":"Performer-led, tradition-led, mnemonic, acoustic, respiratory, and collective-response explanations are retained with uncertainty about reconstruction fidelity and historical transfer."},{"archetype_element":"Responsibility and Moralization Boundary","domain_realization":"Causal contribution to the performed form is kept separate from artistic rank, authenticity, ownership, legal authorship, praise, blame, and cultural authority."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned Attribution Synthesis and Review Rule","domain_realization":"The synthesis is reopened if better venue measurements, additional authorized recordings, different substitute performers, revised annotations, or a new consequential use changes its evidential basis."}],"substrate_contract":{"counterfactual_independence":"If software, algorithms, databases, automated transcription, information routing, training protocols, and administrative wrappers are removed, the adjustable room surfaces, audience geometry, acoustic energy, human respiration, calibrated meter readings, and audible performance contrasts still produce the essential intervention effect. Conditions can be set mechanically, meters read directly, and formal changes annotated by humans.","forbidden_channel_audit":"Software may only log synchronized measurements or assist transcription; it may not generate, recommend, score, or control poetic choices. Governance supplies consent and safety boundaries but does not create the causal contrast. No incentive, curriculum, database, model, or organizational process substitutes for physically changing and measuring the acoustic field, respiratory load, and listener audibility.","primary_allowed_process":"HYBRID_OTHER_ALLOWED_PRIMARY"},"title":"Physical Acoustic Substitution Test for Oral-Epic Form","version":0},"schema_version":1}