{"actors":["Authors and authorized collaborators of mutable digital narratives","Literary critics and peer reviewers","Readers whose traversal paths instantiate different textual sequences","Editors, librarians, and digital archivists","Literature-program curriculum and methods committees","Platform or engine maintainers whose changes affect execution"],"affected_objective":"Interpretive claims about mutable digital narratives remain traceable to the work-state, traversal, and technical conditions that support them while preserving legitimate access, attribution, and archival obligations.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A methods committee may conduct a read-only audit of public or permissioned works and criticism, record only the minimum metadata needed for analysis, and invite author, reader, and archivist corrections.","decision_authority":"The literature-program methods committee may approve, pause, or withdraw an internal citation pilot; authors and repositories retain authority over access and reuse, while any broader editorial or archival standard requires separate institutional approval and affected-party consultation.","excluded_actions":["Do not modify a work, platform, archive, or published critical record.","Do not circumvent access controls, licenses, copyright restrictions, or platform safeguards.","Do not collect private reader paths, unpublished drafts, or contributor identities without explicit permission.","Do not declare a work ontologically continuous or ruptural solely from technical change-point evidence.","Do not make the pilot citation regime a condition of publication, grading, employment, or archival acquisition."],"halt_rollback":"Halt if the audit exposes restricted material, creates an attribution dispute, cannot preserve participant confidentiality, or requires unauthorized execution. Quarantine affected observations, remove them from analysis, notify the responsible custodian, and revert participating courses or reviews to their prior citation rules; no work classification becomes permanent during the pilot."},"baseline":"Critics cite a title, URL, access date, quotation, or screenshot and explain mutability case by case. This can identify a location without systematically distinguishing session-level variation, authored revision, engine or dependency change, platform migration, and loss of executable state; decisions to freeze, parallel-cite, or abandon earlier versions remain ad hoc.","candidate_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__literature_literary_theory__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["A mutable narrative can change through authored revision, reader traversal, dependency drift, platform intervention, or loss of executable components.","A title-level citation collapses these processes into one apparent object and can make either stability or rupture depend on an unstated observation window.","A version–path evidence ledger separates work state, presented sequence, reader reconstruction, technical dependencies, and affected-party accounts across session, release, and platform timescales.","Mechanism discrimination and replay probes test whether observed differences are ordinary variation, cumulative revision, threshold-crossing reorganization, external shock, replacement, or relabeling.","The resulting reversibility and legacy map identifies which quotations, paths, attribution records, interpretive claims, and access obligations can persist, require translation, need archiving, or must be retired.","A gated pilot then selects per-work treatment—ordinary citation, augmented state citation, bounded parallel citation, or an explicit evidentiary discontinuity—without presuming one regime for all mutable works.","Monitoring retraceability failures, hidden dependency changes, attribution disputes, access burdens, and unresolved coexistence triggers revision or rollback of the citation regime."],"cell_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"Misclassifying mutable variation as continuity can leave quotations or narratological claims detached from the state that generated them; misclassifying it as rupture can fragment a work’s critical history, erase contributor and reader continuities, or discard usable records. Either error can weaken review, attribution, teaching, and later reinterpretation.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"No prior proposals were inspected under runtime isolation, so diversity from them is not asserted; this candidate is specified solely from the supplied archetype and domain card.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Establish a reversible version–path criticism protocol for mutable digital narratives. For each selected work, define the comparison object and invariant interpretive claims; reconstruct session-, release-, and platform-scale timelines; pair continuity and rupture evidence; classify the change mechanism; test replay, dependency, path, and rollback conditions; map quotations, contributor rights, reader-path evidence, records, and technical dependencies; then choose ordinary, augmented, parallel, or discontinuity-marked citation behind explicit gates. Preserve legacy citations through concordances, limit parallel citation to a fixed window, and revise the regime when retraceability, attribution, access, or dependency triggers fire.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without comparisons across session, release, and platform resolutions, reader-path variation may be confused with authored or infrastructural rupture.","mechanism_slug":"multi_resolution_change_point_and_trend_comparison","role":"Compare event ordering, textual tokens, branching structure, executable outputs, and dependency states across nested windows and alternative release boundaries."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without process evidence, similar textual differences could be attributed to the wrong agent or cause.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_and_mechanism_discrimination","role":"Trace commits, author notes, archived captures, engine changes, platform notices, and permissioned accounts to distinguish revision, traversal, shock, reorganization, and relabeling."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without paired claims, a preferred theory of stable text or radical digital difference could suppress contrary evidence.","mechanism_slug":"continuity_rupture_claim_matrix","role":"Record, for each interpretive property and affected actor, evidence of persistence, break, missingness, observer dependence, and plausible counterinterpretation."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without bounded replay and return-path tests, technical reproducibility could be assumed where external dependencies or accumulated state make restoration impossible.","mechanism_slug":"threshold_hysteresis_and_reversibility_probe","role":"Re-execute permissioned captures under bounded conditions, vary traversal and dependency versions, and test whether removing the change restores the earlier interpretable state."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rehearsal, dual citation could create unresolved authority between legacy and current states or fail when reviewers lack access to one state.","mechanism_slug":"parallel_transition_and_cutover_rehearsal","role":"Trial legacy and state-specific citations together, reconcile conflicts, test reviewer access, and require a sunset or explicit coexistence justification."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without follow-up audit, supposedly preserved citations, attributions, and paths could silently become unusable after platform or dependency changes.","mechanism_slug":"post_transition_legacy_loss_and_regime_audit","role":"Check retraceability, concordance integrity, attribution, access burden, retired-state handling, and persistence of mechanisms the classification treated as ended."}],"nearest_rivals":["An archival-snapshot mandate, which preserves selected states but presumes freezing is the appropriate response before diagnosing the change mechanism.","A born-digital critical edition, which can document variants comprehensively but does not by itself select when ordinary, parallel, staged, or discontinuity-marked criticism is warranted.","A version-identifier citation rule, which improves reference precision but may omit traversal paths, external dependencies, affected-party losses, reversibility, and sunset governance.","Media-specific close reading, which can analyze interface and code features but need not reconstruct competing chronologies or govern a transition between critical regimes."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"In a blinded comparison on the same permissioned corpus, the protocol is undermined if reviewers using it are no more consistent in locating claim-supporting states, discriminating change mechanisms, or identifying unrecoverable dependencies than reviewers using the baseline, while adding unresolved access or attribution burdens.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is undermined if sampled narratives have stable, recoverable states; title-level citations reliably recover the evidence; traversal and dependency differences do not alter the interpretive claims under review; and affected parties identify no meaningful distinction between the proposed continuity and rupture treatments.","risks":["The protocol could reify one institutional definition of a literary work and marginalize authorial or reader-defined continuities.","Capturing executable states or paths could violate licenses, privacy, or contributor expectations.","Technical metadata could be mistaken for decisive literary evidence.","Resource-intensive citation requirements could exclude critics or works lacking preservation infrastructure.","Parallel citations could persist indefinitely and split critical authority.","A reproducible capture could create false confidence if network services, models, or undocumented dependencies remain unavailable.","Classification could redirect credit or blame among authors, collaborators, readers, and platforms without adequate evidence."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Literary interpretation may remain valid across mutable states because its relevant object is a recurring motif, rule, or reader practice rather than an exact token sequence; demanding state-level reproducibility could therefore solve a bibliographic problem while constraining legitimate interpretation."},"next_evidence_step":"Select at most 12 public or explicitly permissioned mutable narratives from one bounded teaching or review context, stratified by authored revision, branching traversal, and platform dependence. For each, sample two published or draft interpretive claims, reconstruct no more than three authorized states, and have three reviewers independently apply the baseline and proposed protocol. Record retraceability, classification disagreements, missing dependencies, time burden, affected-party objections, and cases where state differences do not change interpretation; make no policy cutover from this study.","observable_state":"For each work-state and interpretive claim: content hash or authorized version label, access time, traversal choices, presented event order, engine and declared dependency versions, available captures, author or platform change records, missing intervals, quoted passages, attribution assertions, reviewer reconstruction outcome, and disagreements from authors, readers, or archivists.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Critics, editors, and teachers lack a governed way to decide whether changes in a mutable digital narrative constitute ordinary variation within one work, cumulative revision, a threshold-crossing reorganization, or replacement by a new critical object. The same title may yield different wording, event order, narratorial behavior, or available paths across sessions, releases, readers, and platform states. Treating all states as continuous can detach claims from evidence, while declaring every change a rupture can erase critical, authorial, and archival continuity.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Relative to snapshot-only, citation-only, and critical-edition approaches, the candidate’s testable distinction is the linkage of multi-scale causal diagnosis to a reversible choice among citation regimes, with explicit legacy treatment, coexistence sunset, affected-party standing, and rollback triggers; whether that linkage improves critical retraceability remains to be tested.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial complete candidate specification","Concrete literary-theory problem inference","Full causal and structural mapping","Authority-bounded reversible evidence step","Explicit falsifiers and risks"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Change Object, Property, and Invariant Frame","domain_realization":"Define the object as an authorized state of a mutable narrative plus its traversal and execution conditions; define the invariant as the ability to trace an interpretive claim to evidence without assuming that title identity guarantees textual identity."},{"archetype_element":"Multi-Scale Timeline and Boundary Set","domain_realization":"Separate within-session traversal time, release and revision time, platform or engine time, reception history, and later recovery time; test alternative boundaries such as publication, patch, migration, or dependency loss."},{"archetype_element":"Change-Mechanism and Regime Classifier","domain_realization":"Distinguish authored drift, accumulated patches, branching thresholds, procedural reorganization, platform shock, successor replacement, and marketing or critical relabeling using process evidence."},{"archetype_element":"Continuity–Rupture Evidence Ledger","domain_realization":"Pair every claim that a character, narrator, genre, or plot persists with state-specific break evidence, and pair every claimed rupture with retained rules, motifs, attributions, paths, or reception records."},{"archetype_element":"Threshold, Path-Dependence, and Reversibility Profile","domain_realization":"Test whether traversal history, saved state, model or engine updates, network dependencies, and community expectations make an earlier reading recoverable, costly to restore, or unavailable after a boundary."},{"archetype_element":"Affected-Party, Legacy, and Loss Map","domain_realization":"Assign provisional treatment to quotations, annotations, variant states, contributor credit, reader-path accounts, classroom materials, reviews, source files, and platform dependencies: preserve, translate, compensate, archive, retire, or mark unavailable."},{"archetype_element":"Transition-Regime, Safeguard, and Cutover Plan","domain_realization":"Choose ordinary citation, augmented state citation, time-bounded parallel citation, or explicit critical discontinuity per diagnosed work; gate changes on access, attribution, replay, concordance, and affected-party review."},{"archetype_element":"Regime Monitor, Recovery, and Revision Loop","domain_realization":"Track broken citations, replay failures, unexplained state divergence, access inequity, attribution disputes, legacy-record loss, and dual-regime duration, with triggers to pause, revise, or restore the prior citation policy."}],"title":"Version–Path Regime Diagnosis for Mutable Digital Narrative Criticism","version":0}