{"actors":["Agency rulemaking counsel and program offices","Official-register and code-publication clerks","Courts and administrative review bodies","Enforcement officers and permit or benefits adjudicators","Regulated parties, affected claimants, and their counsel","Legislative and executive oversight staff"],"affected_objective":"Reproduce which version and asserted legal status of an administrative rule governed a specified jurisdiction, issue, event time, and decision-time knowledge state.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A records team may construct a read-only shadow ledger from already-authorized public documents for one completed rule lineage and compare its projections with archived official views.","decision_authority":"Only legally designated agencies, publication officers, courts, or review bodies retain authority to issue, authenticate, stay, interpret, amend, vacate, or repeal legal instruments; the ledger records their acts and does not confer legal force.","excluded_actions":["Do not use the pilot projection as controlling law or as the sole basis for enforcement, eligibility, penalties, deadlines, or rights determinations.","Do not infer a rule's validity or causal effect merely from event sequence.","Do not ingest sealed, privileged, personally identifying, or protected case material.","Do not silently merge uncertain instrument identities, overwrite disputed assertions, or patch derived status views directly.","Do not automate legal interpretation where source instruments leave scope, retroactivity, jurisdiction, or remedy unresolved."],"halt_rollback":"Halt if replay changes under the pinned projector, an official source cannot be linked to a consequential event, redaction obligations cannot propagate, or the shadow view could be mistaken for authoritative law; withdraw the projection, retain the source-document crosswalk and error log, and leave existing official systems unchanged."},"baseline":"Agency websites, current code tables, register notices, litigation dockets, guidance pages, and internal matter trackers are consulted separately; staff manually reconstruct a rule's past or present legal status, while corrections and stays may update one view without consistently updating the others.","candidate_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__law_governance__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["Rulemaking, publication, effective-date, correction, stay, judicial-review, amendment, and repeal acts are currently represented in separate mutable systems.","Those systems emphasize current text or local case status and can overwrite or omit the path by which asserted legal force changed.","The intervention captures each bounded act or sourced assertion with stable identity, participant roles, jurisdiction, instrument linkage, valid time, record time, provenance, transformation, uncertainty, and legal-status classification.","Validation and idempotency rules quarantine malformed or duplicate assertions, while corrections, contested interpretations, and later judgments remain linked rather than replacing prior knowledge states.","Pinned projection rules replay the accepted events under explicit precedence, concurrency, jurisdiction, and decision-time semantics.","Current-force, historical-force, litigation, and notice projections therefore share one evidentiary substrate while exposing their frontier, conflicts, lag, and coverage limits.","Rebuild-and-diff checks reveal projection drift or missing event classes, directing correction to the ledger or projector rather than to an independently edited status field.","Decision-makers can inspect the source acts and declared interpretation that produced a status view, while authorized legal institutions retain responsibility for resolving legal ambiguity."],"cell_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__law_governance","consequence":"A decision-maker may consult the wrong rule text or status for the relevant date and jurisdiction, making enforcement, compliance, permitting, benefits, or review decisions difficult to explain and potentially inconsistent with the controlling legal instruments.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"No comparison with prior proposals was performed under runtime isolation; this candidate is specifically organized around reconstructing the changing normative force of administrative rules rather than treating a docket, current code, or document archive as canonical.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a governed bitemporal normative-force event ledger for one administrative-rule lineage. Treat issuance, publication, correction, effective-date arrival, interpretation, stay, injunction, appeal, mandate, amendment, supersession, vacatur, and repeal as typed event assertions. Derive versioned current-force, historical-force, decision-time, jurisdictional, and litigation-status views through replayable projectors that show source coverage, frontier, unresolved conflicts, and whether a status is reported, inferred, disputed, or authoritatively adjudicated.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without append-only storage, later amendments or judgments can erase the earlier record and prevent reconstruction of what officials knew at a prior decision time.","mechanism_slug":"append_only_event_store","role":"Preserves authenticated legal acts, sourced assertions, and linked correction or supersession records as the governed historical substrate."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without dual time, the date an act purportedly changed legal force is conflated with the date the institution learned, recorded, or corrected it.","mechanism_slug":"bitemporal_event_register","role":"Separates asserted legal-effect time from publication, receipt, entry, correction, and adjudication time."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a replayable projection, each status page remains an independently maintained legal conclusion that can drift from the underlying acts.","mechanism_slug":"event_sourced_projection","role":"Derives rule text, asserted force, jurisdiction, litigation posture, and decision-time views from selected events under a pinned interpretation policy."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without linked compensating records, a correction, stay, reversal, or vacatur either destroys the previous knowledge state or leaves an unexplained contradiction.","mechanism_slug":"compensating_event_correction","role":"Represents corrections, stays, reversals, mandates, and supersessions through explicit lineage while preserving earlier recorded positions."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rebuild comparison, manual patches and non-deterministic interpretation dependencies can remain hidden in live status views.","mechanism_slug":"projection_rebuild_and_diff","role":"Replays a pinned rule lineage and compares reconstructed views with live or archived projections using declared invariants."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without frontier disclosure, users may mistake a view missing a recent order, publication, or source partition for a complete statement of law.","mechanism_slug":"projection_frontier_dashboard","role":"Shows the latest processed sources, event and record times, unresolved conflicts, failed imports, and declared completeness limits."}],"nearest_rivals":["A current electronic code with source notes and effective-date annotations","An official-register document archive and citation index","A litigation docket or citator that tracks judicial treatment","A conventional case-management system with an audit trail","A manually maintained regulatory-obligations register"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for the pilot if two independent replays of the same accepted events and pinned projector do not reproduce the same status view, or if the ledger cannot reconstruct the archived official status at selected checkpoints without unrecorded manual state edits.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified for the selected lineage if authoritative current and historical status can already be reproduced from one governed source, including corrections, stays, jurisdiction, source provenance, and decision-time knowledge, with no material cross-system reconciliation.","risks":["A derived status may be mistaken for an authoritative legal determination.","Event schemas may encode one contested theory of effectiveness, retroactivity, jurisdiction, or judicial remedy.","The ledger may preserve superseded allegations, party information, or sensitive enforcement history longer than justified.","False entity resolution may join different instruments, dockets, jurisdictions, or similarly named parties.","Fine-grained capture may create operational burden and expand institutional surveillance.","Late documents or publication failures may reorder projections after people relied on an earlier view.","A computational tie-break may be misrepresented as legal or causal precedence.","Recorded sources may be treated as complete despite informal practices, inaccessible records, or missing local instruments."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Official registers, codified-law systems, citators, and court dockets may already provide sufficient source-linked history for the bounded rule lineage; remaining disagreements may arise from genuine legal ambiguity that an event model cannot resolve rather than from overwritten or drifting records."},"next_evidence_step":"Select one completed administrative-rule lineage containing at least one amendment or correction and one judicial or administrative status change. Using only its public official documents, encode a maximum of 40 event assertions, pin one projector specification, and test whether two reviewers can reproduce status at five preselected valid-time and record-time checkpoints. Compare results with archived official views, log disagreements and missing evidence, and stop without operational deployment.","observable_state":"For a selected administrative rule, official sources expose a sequence of proposal, adoption, publication, correction, effectiveness, litigation, stay, amendment, and repeal acts, yet current code, agency guidance, docket, and internal status records can show different text, dates, jurisdictions, or force. Reviewers cannot consistently reproduce what status was asserted or knowable at an earlier checkpoint without manually reconciling those sources.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Administrative rules acquire, lose, or change asserted legal force through distributed acts occurring on different legal-effect and record dates. Current-text databases and separate dockets preserve fragments but do not provide a single replayable account of how a rule's text and status arose, so late orders, corrections, overlapping jurisdictions, and contested interpretations can produce drifting views and unreproducible decision-time histories.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate's distinguishing claim is structural: a docket, citator, current code, document archive, or audit trail can retain useful history, but the proposed system makes bounded legal-status events and their correction lineage canonical, while every rule-status view is a versioned, frontier-visible projection that can be discarded and rebuilt.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial candidate; no claims of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial formulation of administrative-rule legal force as a bitemporal event-projection problem."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence reviewed; prior art remains unsearched."],"operational_changes":["Defined a read-only, one-lineage, maximum-40-event shadow reconstruction as the first authorized step."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete domain problem and affected objective","Actors, observable state, and consequence","Causally matched intervention and mappings","Authority limits and safeguards","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Bounded first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Canonical event assertion","domain_realization":"A typed assertion about issuance, publication, correction, effective-date arrival, stay, injunction, interpretation, mandate, amendment, supersession, vacatur, or repeal, carrying instrument identity, participant roles, jurisdiction, valid time, record time, source, transformation, uncertainty, and status."},{"archetype_element":"Stable event and participant identity","domain_realization":"Source-scoped identifiers bind notices, rules, dockets, orders, institutions, and parties while preserving uncertain matches, successor agencies, severed provisions, and consolidated cases."},{"archetype_element":"Explicit ordering and concurrency","domain_realization":"Legal-effect order, publication order, docket order, source-local sequence, and computational tie-breaks are declared separately; overlapping orders or uncertain effect dates remain partially ordered."},{"archetype_element":"Correction and supersession lineage","domain_realization":"Errata, stays, reversals, amendments, vacaturs, mandates, and repeals link to affected assertions without silently deleting what a prior source or decision-time view contained."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned projection definition","domain_realization":"Each current-force, historical-force, litigation, jurisdictional, or decision-time view declares included event types, authority hierarchy, temporal axis, treatment of disputes, projector version, and output contract."},{"archetype_element":"Projection frontier and completeness statement","domain_realization":"Each view discloses processed publications and dockets, latest record time, failed sources, unresolved conflicts, excluded jurisdictions, and known coverage gaps."},{"archetype_element":"Replay and reconciliation","domain_realization":"A pinned projector rebuilds status from the event ledger and compares it with archived or live views using invariants such as source linkage, nonoverlapping operative text, and preserved decision-time snapshots."},{"archetype_element":"Retention, redaction, and access governance","domain_realization":"Public legal acts remain source-linked, while protected party data, sealed material, internal deliberation, and redaction obligations are excluded or access-restricted and propagated to all projections."}],"title":"Bitemporal Normative-Force Ledger for Administrative Rules","version":0}