{"actors":["Literary critics and genre theorists","Editors of journals, anthologies, and teaching collections","Authors whose works receive genre labels","Librarians and catalog or metadata stewards","Instructors and students who form corpora through genre categories","Readers and communities whose genre terms or distinctions may be absorbed, renamed, or excluded"],"affected_objective":"Genre categories support interpretable corpus formation, comparison, discovery, and teaching while preserving the provenance of earlier classifications and making disputed or uneven boundary changes visible.","arm":"ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A literature-program methods committee may conduct a read-only study of public catalog records, paratexts, criticism, and permissioned affected-party accounts, then test proposed crosswalks in a nonbinding copy of one local teaching bibliography.","decision_authority":"The methods committee may approve, pause, or withdraw the internal classification pilot. Authors, publishers, libraries, and community custodians retain authority over their records and self-descriptions; changing official catalogs, publication labels, curricula, or evaluation rules requires separate authorization from their responsible bodies.","excluded_actions":["Do not overwrite historical genre labels or silently replace source metadata.","Do not alter publisher, library, author, or community-controlled records.","Do not treat computational similarity or sales metadata as dispositive literary evidence.","Do not infer private identities or sensitive community affiliations from genre assignments.","Do not make the pilot taxonomy a condition of publication, grading, hiring, funding, or acquisition.","Do not declare a category obsolete or a work misclassified without preserving provenance, dissent, and the comparison frame."],"halt_rollback":"Halt if the pilot exposes restricted records, causes an attribution or community-labeling dispute, produces non-reconcilable mappings, or begins influencing consequential decisions. Remove pilot labels from the working bibliography, restore its prior classifications, quarantine disputed observations, and refer record or terminology questions to the relevant custodian; retain only authorized audit documentation."},"baseline":"Genre labels in catalogs, syllabi, anthologies, and criticism are generally inherited from prior records or assigned through local judgment. New or hybrid works may receive additional labels, but criteria, boundary dates, mappings to older categories, and conditions for splitting or retiring a category are often documented case by case rather than through a shared transition regime.","candidate_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__literature_literary_theory__ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["A genre category links formal properties, reading expectations, publication institutions, historical lineages, and community usage rather than naming a single observable feature.","Those elements can change at different tempos, so a stable label may conceal changed membership rules while a new label may redescribe an older configuration.","Comparing category definitions, assigned works, formal features, paratexts, and reader or author accounts across publication, institutional, and reception timescales reveals where continuity and boundary breaks actually occur.","Process tracing then distinguishes gradual convention drift, cumulative hybridization, threshold-crossing category strain, institutional shock, endogenous reorganization, category replacement, and strategic relabeling.","A reversibility and legacy analysis identifies whether classifications can be crosswalked, whether dual labeling creates lock-in or ambiguity, and which historical terms, corpus memberships, self-descriptions, and records must persist or be explicitly retired.","A bounded taxonomy pilot selects among maintaining the category, adding facets, staging a split, operating a time-limited crosswalk, or making a decisive replacement according to the diagnosed mechanism and transition costs.","Monitoring retrieval failures, classification disagreement, corpus discontinuity, disputed self-description, and indefinite dual labeling triggers correction, slowdown, rollback, or redesign."],"cell_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"False continuity can make historically different selection rules look comparable and distort genre-based interpretation, corpus construction, or teaching. False rupture can sever works from useful lineages, erase earlier terminology and community self-description, or create incompatible corpora whose differences are mistaken for literary change.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Unlike P1's state-specific criticism and citation protocol for mutable digital narratives, this opportunity concerns transitions in genre classification across works and institutions. Its affected problem is corpus and category comparability, its intervention is a governed taxonomy crosswalk or cutover, and its causal path runs through changing membership criteria, institutional uptake, and classification lock-in rather than executable work states, traversal paths, or citation retraceability.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a reversible genre-taxonomy transition protocol for one bounded literary collection. Define each category's comparison object, membership properties, functions, observers, and invariants; reconstruct alternative timelines of definitions, assignments, formal conventions, publication channels, and reception; maintain paired continuity and rupture evidence; discriminate change mechanisms; test boundary sensitivity, crosswalk reversibility, and classification lock-in; and map historical labels, corpus memberships, community terms, teaching materials, and catalog records for preservation, transformation, archiving, or retirement. Compare category maintenance, faceted extension, staged split, time-limited parallel labeling, and decisive replacement behind explicit gates, then revise or roll back when disagreement, retrieval, legacy-loss, or coexistence triggers fire.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without comparisons across work, collection, institutional, and historical resolutions, local experimentation could be mistaken for a genre-wide break or aggregate stability could hide a subgroup boundary shift.","mechanism_slug":"multi_resolution_change_point_and_trend_comparison","role":"Compare category definitions, membership decisions, formal traits, paratextual labels, and reception patterns across nested windows and alternative onset or completion dates."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without process evidence, a changed distribution of labels could be misattributed to literary form when catalog policy, publishing strategy, critical fashion, or community terminology generated it.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_and_mechanism_discrimination","role":"Trace editorial statements, classification guidance, anthology introductions, catalog revisions, criticism, and permissioned accounts to distinguish drift, accumulation, threshold strain, shock, reorganization, replacement, and relabeling."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without paired claims, advocates of either stable genres or permanent hybridity could select only evidence consistent with their theoretical position.","mechanism_slug":"continuity_rupture_claim_matrix","role":"Record persistence, break, missingness, scale dependence, observer position, and counterinterpretation for category rules, work membership, reading expectations, and institutional uses."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without boundary and return-path probes, a taxonomy split might appear reversible even after cross-references, teaching materials, and contributor behavior reorganize around it.","mechanism_slug":"threshold_hysteresis_and_reversibility_probe","role":"Vary candidate membership rules and boundary dates in a nonbinding dataset, remove proposed labels, and test whether earlier retrieval, corpus composition, and interpretive comparisons can be restored without residual divergence."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rehearsal, parallel labels could generate duplicate corpora, ambiguous authority, or an indefinite transitional vocabulary.","mechanism_slug":"parallel_transition_and_cutover_rehearsal","role":"Run old and proposed classifications together in a sandboxed bibliography, reconcile conflicting assignments, test crosswalks and retrieval, and enforce a review date and sunset condition."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without later audit, historical labels or corpus links designated for preservation could disappear while supposedly retired membership rules continue under new terminology.","mechanism_slug":"post_transition_legacy_loss_and_regime_audit","role":"Check provenance, crosswalk integrity, retrieval behavior, classification distribution, disputed labels, legacy access, and persistence of old criteria after each pilot gate."}],"nearest_rivals":["A static genre ontology, which states category relationships but does not diagnose the mechanism or tempo of category change or govern migration from prior classifications.","Automatic genre classification, which assigns labels from textual features but does not establish whether the category regime itself is continuous, ruptural, legitimate, or reversible.","A historical account of genre formation, which can explain changing conventions without selecting and safeguarding a present classification transition.","A faceted cataloging scheme, which permits multiple descriptors but can institutionalize indefinite coexistence without testing boundaries, legacy loss, or sunset conditions."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The protocol is undermined if independent reviewers using it produce no more stable or explicable corpus mappings than under the baseline, fail to recover legacy classifications after rollback, or create more unresolved retrieval and self-description conflicts without identifying evidence that changes the transition decision.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is undermined if the sampled category has stable documented membership criteria across the chosen windows, alternative boundaries do not materially change corpus composition or interpretation, existing mappings preserve provenance and retrieval, and affected custodians identify no consequential difference among the candidate transition regimes.","risks":["Institutional criteria could override authorial, reader, or community self-description.","A pilot taxonomy could naturalize contestable genre boundaries under the appearance of method.","Sparse or selectively preserved criticism could fabricate continuity or rupture.","Formal-feature coding could reduce historically situated genres to decontextualized attributes.","Parallel labels could persist indefinitely and fragment discovery or teaching.","Retiring a term could erase its historical use, while preserving it could perpetuate a harmful or misleading classification.","Pilot results could leak into consequential editorial, curricular, or acquisition decisions."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Genre categories may function productively as deliberately unstable interpretive propositions rather than consistent membership systems; demanding transition gates and reversible mappings could impose administrative coherence on ambiguity that literary analysis should preserve."},"next_evidence_step":"Select one non-consequential teaching bibliography containing at most 60 publicly documented works associated with one disputed genre boundary. Sample classification records and critical definitions from no more than three historical windows, preserve every source label, and have three reviewers independently construct baseline and proposed mappings. Test two alternative boundary rules and one rollback, recording corpus changes, retrieval failures, disagreements, missing evidence, self-description conflicts, time burden, and cases where taxonomy differences do not affect interpretation. Make no official catalog or curriculum change.","observable_state":"For each category claim and work: source label, source and date, stated or inferred membership rule, formal features cited, paratextual description, publication venue, relevant critical definition, historical window, observer or custodian position, alternative assignments, missing records, crosswalk result, retrieval result, reviewer disagreement, rollback residue, and any authorized objection to terminology or placement.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A literature program considering changes to a genre taxonomy cannot tell whether apparent category instability reflects gradual convention drift, accumulated hybridization, a threshold at which membership rules cease to discriminate, an institutional shock, replacement, or mere relabeling. Stable names can conceal altered corpus boundaries, while newly coined labels can split historically comparable works. Without a diagnosis tied to transition choices, maintaining, extending, splitting, or retiring categories can disrupt interpretation, discovery, teaching, provenance, and affected parties' self-descriptions.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Relative to static ontologies, automated assignment, historical description, and unconstrained faceting, the candidate's testable distinction is that multi-scale mechanism diagnosis determines whether a genre taxonomy should be maintained, extended, split, paralleled, or replaced, with provenance-preserving crosswalks, bounded coexistence, affected-party objections, and rollback tests.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial complete second-slot candidate specification","Material separation from the sealed P1 problem, intervention, and causal path","Full archetype-to-domain structural mapping","Authority-bounded reversible pilot","Explicit falsifiers, counterevidence, and risks"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Change Object, Property, and Invariant Frame","domain_realization":"Define the changing object as a genre category plus its membership rule, institutional uses, and observer positions; preserve as an invariant the ability to reconstruct why a work belonged to a corpus under each documented regime."},{"archetype_element":"Multi-Scale Timeline and Boundary Set","domain_realization":"Separate changes within individual works, publication seasons, critical movements, institutional classification cycles, and longer reception histories while testing alternative dates for category emergence, strain, split, or replacement."},{"archetype_element":"Change-Mechanism and Regime Classifier","domain_realization":"Distinguish gradual convention drift, cumulative hybridization, threshold loss of discriminating power, publishing or catalog shock, endogenous critical reorganization, category replacement, and strategic relabeling."},{"archetype_element":"Continuity–Rupture Evidence Ledger","domain_realization":"Pair claims of genre persistence with changed membership rules, excluded works, or altered reading expectations, and pair claims of rupture with retained formal devices, lineages, institutional functions, and community terms."},{"archetype_element":"Threshold, Path-Dependence, and Reversibility Profile","domain_realization":"Test sensitivity to boundary rules and determine whether cross-references, syllabi, catalog records, critical vocabularies, and contributor expectations create lock-in or prevent restoration of an earlier classification state."},{"archetype_element":"Affected-Party, Legacy, and Loss Map","domain_realization":"Assign treatments to historical genre terms, source labels, corpus memberships, author and community self-descriptions, catalog records, anthology structures, criticism, and teaching materials: preserve, translate, transform, archive, contest, or retire."},{"archetype_element":"Transition-Regime, Safeguard, and Cutover Plan","domain_realization":"Choose category maintenance, faceted extension, staged split, time-bounded parallel labeling, or decisive replacement; gate each step on evidence coverage, crosswalk integrity, retrieval tests, custodian authority, documented dissent, and rollback feasibility."},{"archetype_element":"Regime Monitor, Recovery, and Revision Loop","domain_realization":"Track unexplained membership changes, retrieval failures, reviewer disagreement, disputed terminology, corpus fragmentation, loss of provenance, persistence of retired rules, and dual-label duration, with authority to pause, restore, or redesign the pilot."}],"title":"Genre-Taxonomy Regime Diagnosis and Reversible Corpus Transition","version":0}