{"actors":["Adults subject to existing or proposed guardianship orders","Family and professional guardians","Chosen supporters and caregivers","Probate judges, clerks, court visitors, and appointed counsel","Disability-rights and legal-aid advocates","Health-care providers, benefits agencies, banks, landlords, and other institutions relying on guardianship documents","State legislature and judicial council","Independent court-accessibility and due-process reviewers"],"affected_objective":"Restore and preserve adults' legal agency while maintaining necessary support, benefits, housing, care, records, remedies, and intelligible authority during guardianship reform.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"With judicial data-governance and privacy approval, the court administrative office may conduct a de-identified review of 30 active guardianship files from one probate court and invite up to 12 voluntary, compensated interviews with affected adults, supporters, guardians, and frontline staff; the review changes no order or legal entitlement.","decision_authority":"The legislature controls statutory rights and prospective legal standards; a competent court retains authority over each existing order with notice, representation, evidence, and appeal; the judicial council may approve administrative sequencing but may not extinguish or expand individual authority by workflow alone. An independent reviewer and affected-party advisory group may challenge readiness findings but do not adjudicate cases.","excluded_actions":["No automatic termination, expansion, or conversion of an existing guardianship during the evidence step","No disclosure of identifiable medical, financial, or court records outside authorized review","No assumption that family availability constitutes valid supported decision-making capacity","No fallback that reinstates authority already lawfully removed","No use of aggregate administrative efficiency as a substitute for the adult's expressed will, procedural rights, or individualized findings"],"halt_rollback":"Pause progression to the next cohort if notices are not accessible, counsel or communication support is unavailable, institutions reject valid interim documents, essential payments or care are interrupted, records cannot be reconciled, or review backlogs exceed the approved delay budget. Return unreviewed cases to the prior scheduling state, preserve every existing order until judicial action, provide expedited correction for document errors, and maintain emergency support without enlarging guardian authority."},"baseline":"A uniform statutory effective date is followed by ordinary case-by-case petitions and periodic reviews. New and existing orders remain governed through separate docket practices, with no common ledger distinguishing legal rights that should change promptly from services, records, relationships, and third-party dependencies that require staged translation.","candidate_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__law_governance__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["A guardianship statute changes the presumption and permitted scope of substituted decision-making.","The legal text, individual court orders, administrative practices, and third-party reliance documents change on different clocks.","Treating the reform as wholly continuous can leave adults under authority that no longer satisfies the new standard, while treating it as a single abrupt cutover can make essential transactions and supports fail.","A typed inventory separates legal agency, decisional domains, support functions, records, benefits, contracts, and institutional dependencies for each case class.","Multi-scale timelines and affected-party accounts distinguish formal rupture from continuing practice, delayed implementation, and subgroup-specific service disruption.","Process tracing and bounded document-validity rehearsals test whether observed friction comes from capacity limits, institutional reliance, strategic relabeling, or genuine incompatibility between regimes.","The resulting legacy map assigns each element to preserve, translate, review, compensate, archive, or end.","A hybrid transition applies the authorized prospective gate to new orders while existing orders enter staged, individually adjudicated review cohorts with continuity documents and support readiness gates.","Monitoring of review delay, retained authority, document rejection, service interruption, appeals, and expressed-will participation determines whether cohorts proceed, pause, or are redesigned."],"cell_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__law_governance","consequence":"Without object-specific diagnosis and governed sequencing, reform can create false continuity in legal authority or an unmanaged rupture in care, benefits, housing, financial access, and appeal records. Either error can burden affected adults while obscuring which institution is accountable for correction.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed against prior proposals because runtime isolation forbids inspecting them; this candidate is internally centered on the mixed legal and operational transition of adult guardianship orders.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a Guardianship Authority Transition Ledger and cohort-gated review regime. Before implementation, classify what the reform changes for each decisional domain, reconstruct statutory, docket, institutional, and lived timelines, and test rival mechanisms for apparent continuity or rupture. Apply any legislatively authorized stricter gate to new plenary orders, while placing existing orders into bounded judicial review cohorts rather than automatically preserving or terminating them. Preserve records, benefits, housing, care coordination, and appeal rights; translate proof-of-authority documents; end authority only through authorized law and individualized process; and use document-validity rehearsals, stop triggers, compensation pathways, and a sunset for transitional instruments.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without resolution comparison, a statutory effective date could be mistaken for the date when authority and lived conditions actually change.","mechanism_slug":"multi_resolution_change_point_and_trend_comparison","role":"Compare statute, rulemaking, docket, individual-case, transaction, and lived-experience timelines before and after candidate boundaries."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without process tracing, unchanged outcomes could be attributed to transition delay when institutional refusal, missing supports, or relabeled substituted judgment is the operative cause.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_and_mechanism_discrimination","role":"Trace how an asserted decision travels from the adult through supporters, court documents, and relying institutions to distinguish competing causal mechanisms."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without paired claims, advocates of either immediate termination or indefinite grandfathering could suppress evidence inconsistent with their preferred chronology.","mechanism_slug":"continuity_rupture_claim_matrix","role":"Pair each asserted break in legal authority with possible practical continuity and each asserted continuity function with evidence of rights restriction or exclusion."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a reversibility profile, staged administrative dependencies could silently harden into a new form of substituted authority or make correction costly.","mechanism_slug":"threshold_hysteresis_and_reversibility_probe","role":"Test whether interim documents, support capacity, docket load, and third-party recognition create thresholds or lock-in that differ on entry and return paths."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rehearsal, document rejection, conflicting authority, inaccessible notice, or benefit interruption may first appear in live cases after rights or services have already been affected.","mechanism_slug":"parallel_transition_and_cutover_rehearsal","role":"Run time-bounded tabletop and sandbox document checks across courts, banks, providers, and benefits offices before each review cohort advances."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a post-transition audit, obsolete authority, missing records, uncompensated disruption, or permanent interim instruments could persist without an assigned correction trigger.","mechanism_slug":"post_transition_legacy_loss_and_regime_audit","role":"Audit whether authority actually ended where ordered, continuity functions survived, transitional instruments sunsetted, and losses received review or remedy."}],"nearest_rivals":["Automatic statutory termination or conversion of all existing guardianship orders on one date","Indefinite grandfathering of existing orders with the new standard applied only prospectively","Ordinary periodic review with added training and notices but no regime diagnosis or cohort gates","A supported-decision-making pilot operating alongside guardianship without a rule for reconciliation or sunset"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if a bounded comparison shows that the ledger and cohort gates add delay or procedural burden without improving detection of obsolete authority, document incompatibility, missing support, or continuity failures relative to ordinary individualized review, or if the fallback cannot preserve lawful rights and essential functions simultaneously.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is weakened if sampled orders are already narrowly tailored and promptly reviewed under the incoming standard, affected adults experience no material difference among candidate timelines, relying institutions accept successor documents without interruption, and no legacy element requires treatment beyond routine administration.","risks":["The classification ledger could become a substitute for individualized adjudication.","Cohort sequencing could prolong restrictive authority for people assigned to later groups.","Guardians or institutions could relabel substituted decisions as support while retaining effective control.","Third parties could reject interim documents and interrupt essential transactions.","Parallel documents could create conflicting authority or fraud opportunities.","Sensitive case information could be exposed through review or monitoring.","Available supporters may be mistaken for independent or trustworthy supporters.","Administrative readiness criteria could be captured by institutions that benefit from delay.","Rollback could preserve services by unlawfully restoring authority already removed."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Existing individualized orders, accessible recurring review, reliable counsel, accepted successor documents, and uninterrupted supports may already separate rights adjudication from operational continuity; if so, an additional transition regime could duplicate safeguards and slow relief."},"next_evidence_step":"Complete the authorized one-court study within eight weeks: code 30 active files across pre-order, current-order, and next-review timelines; record missingness and alternative boundary dates; conduct up to 12 voluntary interviews; test three de-identified authority-document scenarios with the clerk and four relying-institution roles; then publish only aggregate findings and a go, redesign, or stop recommendation. No case is reassigned and no legal authority changes.","observable_state":"A jurisdiction is preparing a statutory shift away from plenary adult guardianship toward limited orders and supported decision-making. The bill supplies an effective date, but existing orders, review calendars, proof-of-authority forms, benefits arrangements, institutional acceptance practices, and access to supporters do not necessarily change together. Docket data, order terms, document-rejection logs, review intervals, service interruptions, appeals, and affected-party accounts can reveal whether formal rupture is accompanied by practical continuity or continued control.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Guardianship reform is often framed either as an immediate restoration of legal agency or as a gradual administrative modernization. That whole-system framing hides distinct objects and clocks: a new legal presumption may change abruptly, existing judicial authority may require individualized termination, and the supports and records that keep benefits, housing, health care, and financial transactions functioning may need staged translation. A single tempo therefore risks either prolonging unjustified substituted authority or disrupting essential continuity.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Conditional on evidence of asynchronous legal and operational change, an object-specific hybrid regime—prospective restriction plus staged adjudication of existing orders and explicit continuity controls—should fit the causal structure better than one effective date, indefinite grandfathering, or an ungoverned parallel pilot; the bounded study must determine whether that condition holds.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial formulation; no parent claim exists."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial mapping of continuity–rupture diagnosis to the transition from plenary adult guardianship toward limited orders and supported decision-making."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence or prior-art search used; all empirical claims are framed as hypotheses for bounded testing."],"operational_changes":["Initial specification of a read-only file review, voluntary interviews, document rehearsal, cohort gates, authority boundaries, stop conditions, and fallback."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete law-and-governance problem","Observable mixed-regime state","Causal and structural preservation of the supplied archetype","Explicit authority, due-process, privacy, continuity, and rollback safeguards","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Bounded first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Change Object, Property, and Invariant Frame","domain_realization":"Separate the adult's legal agency, each decisional domain, the court order, support functions, third-party authority documents, duties, records, and remedies; preserve expressed will, due process, essential support, and accountability as candidate invariants."},{"archetype_element":"Multi-Scale Timeline and Boundary Set","domain_realization":"Compare legislative enactment and effective dates, court implementation, individual order and review dates, transaction-level acceptance, and the adult's lived onset and recovery timelines."},{"archetype_element":"Change-Mechanism and Regime Classifier","domain_realization":"Distinguish statutory rupture, gradual docket accumulation, support-capacity thresholds, institutional resistance, endogenous practice change, replacement of decision authority, and merely narrative relabeling."},{"archetype_element":"Continuity–Rupture Evidence Ledger","domain_realization":"For every claim that rights changed, retain evidence of continuing control; for every claim that essential functions continued, retain evidence of exclusion, interruption, document rejection, missing records, and dissent."},{"archetype_element":"Threshold, Path-Dependence, and Reversibility Profile","domain_realization":"Track docket capacity, supporter availability, institutional document recognition, sunk compliance routines, switching costs, and whether restoring services after a failed transition would require restoring prohibited authority."},{"archetype_element":"Affected-Party, Legacy, and Loss Map","domain_realization":"Assign legal agency, relationships, care knowledge, benefits, contracts, records, guardian duties, pending claims, and identities to preserve, translate, review, compensate, archive, or end, with affected adults given standing."},{"archetype_element":"Transition-Regime, Safeguard, and Cutover Plan","domain_realization":"Combine an authorized prospective gate for new plenary orders with staged judicial review of existing orders, accessible notice and counsel, continuity documents, readiness gates, bounded coexistence, correction pathways, and sunset rules."},{"archetype_element":"Regime Monitor, Recovery, and Revision Loop","domain_realization":"Monitor review delay, scope of retained authority, expressed-will participation, document rejection, service interruption, appeals, record integrity, support availability, institutional divergence, compensation, and transitional-document sunset."}],"title":"Guardianship Authority Transition Ledger and Cohort-Gated Review","version":0}