{"actors":["Consortium cataloging council","Systems and discovery librarians","Front-line catalogers","Integrated-library-system vendor","Patrons searching the catalog","Community representatives affected by stigmatizing subject terminology","Accessibility and public-service staff","Records-management and digital-preservation staff"],"affected_objective":"Maintain equitable, intelligible discovery of materials while ending patron-facing stigmatizing terminology and preserving provenance, appeals, stable identifiers, and access paths.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The cataloging council may authorize a read-only evidence audit and a shadow-index replay for one bounded subject area; community representatives may contest the comparison frame and proposed success conditions.","decision_authority":"A joint transition board comprising the cataloging council, systems librarian, public-service representative, records steward, and affected-community representatives decides whether to proceed beyond the shadow test; the library director approves any patron-visible cutover.","excluded_actions":["No deletion or overwriting of legacy authority records","No patron-visible vocabulary change during the first evidence step","No use of patron identities or raw query text outside existing privacy controls","No consortium-wide cutover, vendor contract change, or irreversible identifier reassignment","No rollback that restores stigmatizing patron-facing labels after a later approved suppression"],"halt_rollback":"Halt the shadow test if record linkage fails, protected query data would be exposed, community reviewers identify an unrepresented material distinction, or the test alters production results. Disable the shadow index, retain an auditable test manifest, and return production discovery unchanged."},"baseline":"Current practice combines legacy controlled subject headings, local substitutions, and vendor ranking rules. Changes are handled record by record or through occasional bulk edits, without a shared account of whether the catalog is undergoing label drift, a retrieval-rule change, or a governance rupture; legacy and revised terms may coexist indefinitely, and aggregate search statistics can obscure topic-specific access loss.","candidate_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__library_information_science__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["Legacy headings simultaneously encode retrieval links, historical provenance, cataloging labor, and contested descriptions.","Treating a heading change as either a simple rename or a complete replacement conceals which of those functions persist and which must end.","A typed inventory of objects, properties, affected groups, and invariants separates patron-facing language from identifiers, query expansion, provenance, governance, and appeal rights.","Multi-resolution timelines and record/query traces distinguish slow local substitution, policy-date effects, vendor-display changes, and subgroup-specific discovery breaks.","Mechanism discrimination tests whether observed change reflects terminology drift, cumulative local overrides, a threshold in authority-control coverage, altered ranking behavior, or merely narrative relabeling.","A shadow parallel index and replay expose retrieval divergence and rollback constraints without changing patron-visible results.","The legacy map assigns each element to preserve, translate, transform, archive, compensate, or retire, preventing both provenance erasure and automatic preservation of harmful display authority.","Evidence from diagnosis selects a hybrid regime: suppress approved harmful display terms decisively, migrate crosswalks and cataloging workflows through bounded gates, retain immutable provenance, and sunset dual authority after reconciliation.","Monitoring of retrieval divergence, affected-party reports, unresolved records, legacy leakage, and appeal outcomes triggers pause, revision, or bounded rollback."],"cell_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__library_information_science","consequence":"Without regime diagnosis, an abrupt bulk replacement could break known-item and subject access, erase cataloging provenance, and strand local records, while indefinite gradual substitution could continue exposing patrons to harmful terminology, split retrieval behavior across branches, and preserve old descriptive authority under new labels.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed against prior proposals because runtime isolation prohibits inspecting them; this candidate is specifically grounded in the separation of patron-facing subject language from authority identifiers, retrieval behavior, provenance, and descriptive governance.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a continuity–rupture ledger for one contested subject domain, comparing record, query, policy, and affected-party timelines across item, branch, consortium, and patron-group scales. Classify the operative change mechanisms, map legacy functions and losses, and run a reversible shadow index using proposed display terms and crosswalks. Use predefined gates to choose a hybrid transition: immediate patron-facing suppression only for terms approved through existing authority, staged cataloging and retrieval migration, immutable archival retention of legacy headings, reconciled query expansion during a time-bounded overlap, and an evidence-based sunset for dual authority.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without resolution comparison, monthly consortium aggregates could make branch- or topic-level retrieval cliffs appear continuous, or make sparse observations resemble a sudden break.","mechanism_slug":"multi_resolution_change_point_and_trend_comparison","role":"Compare record coverage, query outcomes, and terminology use at transaction, monthly, branch, consortium, and affected-topic scales around alternative policy and system boundaries."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without process evidence, a changed display label could be mistaken for changed retrieval logic or descriptive authority.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_and_mechanism_discrimination","role":"Trace how headings enter records, propagate through authority files and vendor indexes, influence ranking, and are overridden or appealed."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without paired claims, advocates of continuity could minimize patron-facing harm while advocates of rupture could overlook stable identifiers, provenance, and access paths.","mechanism_slug":"continuity_rupture_claim_matrix","role":"Pair every persistence claim with possible break evidence and every rupture claim with surviving mechanisms, annotated by observer, scale, interval, provenance, and missingness."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded probe, the consortium would not know whether crosswalk coverage, ranking feedback, or local overrides create a threshold after which rollback becomes materially harder.","mechanism_slug":"threshold_hysteresis_and_reversibility_probe","role":"Replay historical queries against a shadow index while varying crosswalk coverage and measuring unresolved records, retrieval divergence, and return-path requirements."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rehearsal, state divergence, conflict authority, and unusable fallback could remain hidden until a patron-visible cutover.","mechanism_slug":"parallel_transition_and_cutover_rehearsal","role":"Operate the proposed mappings only in a nonproduction shadow index, reconcile differences, assign conflict authority, test restoration from captured state, and impose an overlap sunset."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without audit, harmful legacy terms could persist in snippets or exports, while promised provenance and access continuity could silently disappear.","mechanism_slug":"post_transition_legacy_loss_and_regime_audit","role":"After any later authorized stage, inspect display surfaces, exports, retrieval paths, archived headings, appeals, and distribution of unresolved or newly inaccessible records."}],"nearest_rivals":["A one-time global search-and-replace of contested headings","A display-only euphemism layer that leaves authority, indexing, and governance unchanged","Indefinite coexistence of legacy and revised vocabularies without reconciliation or sunset gates","A routine catalog-platform migration focused on technical uptime and training"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"Reject the proposed hybrid regime if the shadow replay shows that the ledger and crosswalk gates do not predict retrieval divergence, if staged reconciliation leaves material access gaps that a simpler display-only change avoids, or if rollback cannot restore indexed state within the bounded test despite preserved snapshots.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is not a continuity–rupture regime problem if patron-facing terms, identifiers, indexing, ranking, provenance, and cataloging authority are already cleanly separable; the change mechanism is known and approximately linear; subgroup and scale comparisons reveal no conflicting break pattern; and an established reversible procedure already determines transition tempo.","risks":["Historical query logs may underrepresent people deterred by existing terminology.","Community reviewers may be treated as validators rather than participants with standing.","Shadow-query replay may encode current ranking bias and make it appear invariant.","Crosswalks may collapse distinctions or reproduce the contested hierarchy under revised labels.","Parallel authority files may diverge and become an indefinite operational burden.","Preserving provenance may inadvertently expose harmful terms through staff interfaces, exports, or public history views.","Vendor-specific indexing behavior may limit observability and rollback confidence."] ,"strongest_counterevidence":"A controlled sample could show that all contested headings function only as detachable display strings, with stable identifiers and query expansion already preserving equivalent access across branches and affected topics; that would favor a simpler governed display substitution rather than the full transition regime."},"next_evidence_step":"Over four weeks, select one contested subject domain and a stratified sample of 500 bibliographic records plus a privacy-reviewed set of historical query templates. Build the typed change frame and evidence ledger, annotate missing periods and policy boundaries, replay the templates against an isolated shadow index with proposed crosswalks, and report retrieval divergence, unresolved mappings, legacy-term leakage, rollback completeness, and disagreements from two affected-community reviewers. Do not alter production records or interfaces.","observable_state":"For each sampled record and query template: legacy and proposed heading identifiers; displayed labels; authority-file and local-override provenance; indexing and ranking path; branch and date coverage; zero-result, known-item, and subject-set differences between production and shadow indexes; unresolved or many-to-one crosswalks; legacy-term leakage across interfaces and exports; rollback reconciliation status; patron-service reports; community-review disagreements; and missing or changed measurement periods.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A library consortium must decide how to replace stigmatizing controlled subject headings. Stakeholders disagree whether this is a gradual vocabulary maintenance task or a rupture in descriptive authority. A simple bulk cutover may sever retrieval links and provenance, but incremental local substitution may prolong harmful displays and create incompatible catalogs. The consortium lacks evidence separating continuity and rupture across display language, stable identifiers, retrieval behavior, cataloging governance, branches, affected patron groups, and time scales.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate differs from a bulk replacement, display alias, or routine migration by making the transition tempo contingent on evidence about distinct catalog functions: patron-facing terminology may end abruptly while identifiers, provenance, retrieval bridges, and workflows follow separately governed paths with reconciliation and sunset gates.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial version; claims are framed as testable design hypotheses without assertions of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version separates descriptive language, identifiers, retrieval, provenance, and governance as distinct continuity–rupture objects."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence consulted; prior art remains unsearched."],"operational_changes":["Initial version bounds the first step to a read-only ledger and isolated shadow-index replay for one subject domain."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete actors and observable state","Explicit consequence and intervention","Full structural and mechanism mappings","Causal chain and baseline","Nearest rivals and contrastive claim","Decision authority, exclusions, halt conditions, and rollback","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Risks, strongest counterevidence, and bounded evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Change Object, Property, and Invariant Frame","domain_realization":"Treat the catalog separately as patron-facing descriptions, authority identifiers, retrieval relationships, provenance records, cataloging obligations, and governance rights; preserve intelligible access, stable linkage, provenance, appeal, and privacy while allowing harmful display authority to end."},{"archetype_element":"Multi-Scale Timeline and Boundary Set","domain_realization":"Compare record-edit events, query-level behavior, monthly branch trends, consortium policy dates, vendor reindexing dates, and affected-community histories, including missing logs and alternative onset or completion boundaries."},{"archetype_element":"Change-Mechanism and Regime Classifier","domain_realization":"Test terminology drift, accumulated local substitution, threshold loss of crosswalk coverage, vendor-induced ranking change, endogenous governance reorganization, vocabulary replacement, and symbolic relabeling as rival or combined explanations."},{"archetype_element":"Continuity–Rupture Evidence Ledger","domain_realization":"Record paired evidence for persistence and break for each function, with provenance, observer, temporal coverage, scale, uncertainty, missingness, and dissent from catalogers and affected patrons."},{"archetype_element":"Threshold, Path-Dependence, and Reversibility Profile","domain_realization":"Estimate ranges where unresolved mappings, local overrides, or dual-authority divergence make access degradation or rollback disproportionately difficult; document snapshots, return-path reconciliation, vendor dependencies, and switching costs."},{"archetype_element":"Affected-Party, Legacy, and Loss Map","domain_realization":"Assign headings, identifiers, crosswalks, cataloger knowledge, local notes, historical decisions, user-created lists, appeal records, and governance powers to preserve, translate, transform, archive, compensate, or retire."},{"archetype_element":"Transition-Regime, Safeguard, and Cutover Plan","domain_realization":"Compare bulk, staged, parallel, hybrid, and reversible-pilot regimes; gate patron-visible change on crosswalk coverage, retrieval rehearsal, community review, state capture, conflict authority, support, and a fixed sunset for dual operation."},{"archetype_element":"Regime Monitor, Recovery, and Revision Loop","domain_realization":"Track retrieval divergence, unresolved records, harmful-term leakage, subgroup reports, appeal outcomes, authority-file drift, provenance preservation, rollback readiness, and overlap duration, with assigned pause and revision triggers."}],"title":"Governed Transition from Stigmatizing Subject Headings Without Breaking Discovery Provenance","version":0}