{"abstention_reason":null,"arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","candidate_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__law_governance__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","cell_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__law_governance","decision":"PROPOSAL","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","proposal":{"actors":["Judges and hearing officers","Court clerks, reporters, interpreters, and accessibility officers","Parties, witnesses, counsel, and self-represented litigants","Jurors and other legally required listeners","Courthouse facilities and audiovisual technicians","Appellate or administrative review bodies"],"affected_objective":"Verify whether an acoustically usable signal physically reached each legally required listening position during consequential portions of an adjudicative hearing, with enough temporal and spatial specificity for prompt remediation and later procedural review.","arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"Facilities staff may run a non-live, scripted courtroom bench test using calibrated, non-speech-reconstructing acoustic probes at representative participant positions and build a read-only shadow event record of deliberately introduced masking, attenuation, and equipment-dropout episodes.","decision_authority":"The presiding judge or legally designated hearing officer alone decides whether to pause, repeat, relocate, continue, supplement the record, or grant a remedy; authorized review bodies determine any legal consequence. Instrument readings are evidence about the received sound field, not rulings on comprehension, prejudice, credibility, or due process.","excluded_actions":["Do not record a live proceeding or intelligible speech without the approvals and notices required by applicable law and court policy.","Do not treat an acoustic threshold crossing as proof that a person understood, failed to understand, consented, waived an objection, or suffered legal prejudice.","Do not automatically interrupt, invalidate, or decide a hearing through software or instrument control.","Do not use measurements for speaker surveillance, emotion inference, voice identification, credibility scoring, employee discipline, or merits evaluation.","Do not replace the official transcript, recording, judicial minutes, or evidentiary record with the acoustic-access ledger.","Do not conceal missing sensors, calibration failures, moved seating, assistive-device use, or unresolved clock alignment."],"halt_rollback":"Halt if probes retain intelligible speech, calibration cannot be reproduced, sensor placement obstructs or alters the proceeding, position identifiers could expose protected participants, or a display could be mistaken for a legal finding. Remove the shadow instruments, quarantine affected measurements, retain only approved calibration and error records, and leave the official case record unchanged."},"baseline":"Courts commonly rely on an opening sound check, the courtroom mixer or recording feed, a stenographic transcript, and participant complaints. Those sources may establish what entered a microphone or transcript while failing to reconstruct what physically reached a witness, juror, party, interpreter, remote-terminal speaker, or gallery position during a particular speaking episode.","candidate_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__law_governance__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Courtroom sound fields vary across seats and time because of distance, orientation, masking noise, room acoustics, failed channels, moved furniture, and assistive-device conditions.","A transcript or central recording can remain complete even when a required listener receives a weak, masked, or interrupted signal, while delayed complaints lack objective spatial and temporal evidence.","Calibrated probes positioned near legally required listening locations physically transduce received sound level, non-speech-reconstructing band energy, background level, and signal dropout on independent channels.","Reference-emitter checks before the session and after material room changes create calibration events that expose sensor drift, obstruction, relocation, and channel failure.","Each speaking episode, interruption, masking episode, equipment transition, participant-position change, calibration, complaint, repetition, and correction is preserved as a bounded assertion with event time, record time, role-position bindings, provenance, validity, and uncertainty.","Append-only correction and explicit partial ordering preserve late clerk marks, disputed episode boundaries, and failed measurements without silently rewriting what was observable during the hearing.","Pinned projection rules reconstruct seat-by-seat acoustic-availability trajectories and identify intervals where prespecified measurement conditions were or were not met, while exposing unmeasured positions and invalid channels.","A presiding official can use the physical evidence to order repetition or another authorized accommodation, and a later reviewer can inspect the exact measurement lineage without treating the projection as proof of comprehension or legal harm."],"cell_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__law_governance","consequence":"A party, witness, juror, or interpreter may miss testimony, an instruction, an objection, or a ruling even though the central recording and transcript appear complete; the defect may go uncorrected in real time and become difficult to establish or evaluate on review.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Unlike P1's reconstruction of the changing normative force of administrative rules from distributed legal instruments, this opportunity addresses the physical acoustic accessibility of adjudicative hearings. It uses spatially distributed measurement transducers, calibration events, and received-sound trajectories rather than legal-status assertions, authority hierarchies, or rule-text projections; its problem, intervention, and causal path are therefore materially independent.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Install a temporary array of calibrated, non-speech-reconstructing acoustic measurement probes at the ear-level positions of required courtroom roles. Treat speaking episodes, masking noise, signal loss, seating changes, assistive-channel changes, calibration checks, complaints, repetitions, and invalidations as canonical acoustic-access events. Preserve the probes' physically measured traces and calibration lineage, then derive replayable position-by-episode projections that show received-level conditions, background conditions, dropouts, sensor validity, frontier, and coverage gaps without deciding whether anyone understood the speech or whether a legal remedy is warranted.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without physical event capture at listener positions, the system falls back to the central microphone feed and cannot establish the sound field actually delivered at the legally relevant locations.","mechanism_slug":"event_capture_template","role":"Couples each bounded hearing episode to calibrated measurements, role-position bindings, room context, event and record times, probe identity, and validity status."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without append-only preservation, later calibration failures, repetitions, or clerk corrections could erase the measurement state available during the original episode.","mechanism_slug":"append_only_event_store","role":"Preserves measurement assertions, calibration events, invalidations, complaints, repetitions, and linked corrections as the canonical acoustic-access history."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without dual time, the time of the physical sound condition would be conflated with the later time a clerk marked, validated, challenged, or corrected the event.","mechanism_slug":"bitemporal_event_register","role":"Separates hearing occurrence time from observation entry, calibration review, complaint, and correction time."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a declared projection, summaries could silently mix different seats, thresholds, invalid sensors, or episode boundaries and become independently edited conclusions.","mechanism_slug":"event_sourced_projection","role":"Reconstructs position-specific acoustic-availability trajectories from selected measurement and context events under a pinned projection contract."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rebuild comparison, missing channels, mutable thresholds, or manual edits could produce a displayed trajectory that no longer corresponds to the preserved measurements.","mechanism_slug":"projection_rebuild_and_diff","role":"Replays the accepted events and compares the result with the shadow view using calibration, channel-count, episode-coverage, and trace-consistency invariants."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without frontier and coverage disclosure, a reviewer could mistake an uninstrumented seat or failed probe for evidence that no acoustic defect occurred.","mechanism_slug":"projection_frontier_dashboard","role":"Shows processed episodes, probe validity, calibration age, clock uncertainty, unmeasured positions, disputed boundaries, and incomplete channels."}],"nearest_rivals":["A stenographic transcript or official courtroom audio recording","A pre-hearing loudspeaker and microphone sound check","Mixer-console levels and audiovisual equipment fault logs","Participant objections, clerk minutes, or post-hearing affidavits about inaudibility","Assistive-listening device self-tests or receiver battery indicators","A general building-acoustics survey conducted outside the hearing sequence"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if, in a blinded scripted-room trial, pinned projections cannot be reproduced from the preserved events or the calibrated position probes fail to distinguish prespecified masking, attenuation, and dropout episodes from control episodes at the declared error tolerance.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified for the selected hearing setting if existing authorized records already provide calibrated, position-specific, time-aligned evidence of received acoustic conditions for every legally required listener, including sensor validity, seating changes, complaints, repetitions, and coverage gaps.","risks":["Instrument placement may obstruct participants or alter the sound field being measured.","Raw acoustic capture could inadvertently preserve privileged, sealed, personal, or otherwise protected speech.","Thresholds may be mistaken for universal measures of comprehension despite hearing variation, language, interpretation, attention, and assistive-device differences.","Incorrect time alignment may associate a dropout or masking event with the wrong speaker or episode.","Role-position bindings may expose protected participant identities or locations.","Visible indicators may pressure a judge to follow an instrument rather than exercise lawful judgment.","Missing or failed probes may create false reassurance if absence of measurement is displayed as satisfactory performance.","Fine-grained records could become surveillance of speakers, jurors, staff, or audience behavior."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Most consequential audibility defects may already be detected and cured through immediate participant objections, competent courtroom staff, assistive-listening checks, and the official recording; additional probes could measure sound-field variables without reliably establishing whether any particular person could understand the proceeding."},"next_evidence_step":"In an empty courtroom or acoustically comparable mock room, place no more than eight calibrated probes at representative judge, witness, counsel, juror, interpreter, and remote-terminal positions. Run 20 scripted speaking episodes with blinded combinations of normal delivery, localized masking, attenuation, seating change, and channel dropout. Retain only non-speech-reconstructing measurements, encode a maximum of 40 events, pin one projection specification, and test replay reproducibility, calibration stability, episode detection, false alarms, and agreement with blinded human listeners before considering any live use.","observable_state":"A courtroom's central recording or transcript can show continuous speech while people at particular positions report inaudibility, masking, or intermittent loss. Existing records usually do not identify the physical received-sound conditions at each required listener position, the precise affected episodes, whether seating or equipment changed, or whether a later repetition cured the same spatial defect.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Adjudicative hearings depend on required participants physically receiving testimony, arguments, instructions, objections, and rulings, yet the official transcript and central audio feed document what was captured at the source rather than what reached each listener. Spatially localized masking and intermittent failures therefore leave no replayable event history adequate to distinguish an isolated complaint, a cured interruption, and a sustained procedural-access defect.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The distinguishing claim is that an official transcript, central recording, equipment log, or opening sound check cannot substitute for canonical, calibrated measurement events at required listening positions; position-by-episode acoustic-access views must be discardable and rebuildable from those physical measurements with visible calibration and coverage limits.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial candidate; makes no claim of novelty, prevalence, legal effect, or clinical-grade prediction of comprehension.","Restricted the claimed observable to physically received acoustic conditions rather than whether a person actually heard, understood, or was prejudiced."],"conceptual_changes":["Formulated adjudicative acoustic access as a spatial measurement-event and replay problem independent of administrative-rule legal status.","Made calibration, sensor invalidation, seating changes, and repetitions first-class events rather than equipment metadata."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence or prior-art search was performed; prior-art status remains unsearched."],"operational_changes":["Limited the first step to a non-live scripted test with eight probes, 20 episodes, no intelligible audio retention, and no operational or legal use."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Material independence from sealed P1","Measurement-instrumentation primary substrate","Concrete law-and-governance problem and affected objective","Event-centered causal chain and mechanism mapping","Authority boundaries and privacy safeguards","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Bounded next evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Canonical event assertion","domain_realization":"A bounded speaking, masking, dropout, position-change, calibration, complaint, repetition, or invalidation assertion carrying probe identity, role-position binding, event time, record time, room context, measured transformation, provenance, and validity."},{"archetype_element":"Event boundary and type contract","domain_realization":"A contract distinguishes physical sound occurrence, instrument observation, participant report, inferred threshold classification, clerk correction, and judicial determination; none is silently substituted for another."},{"archetype_element":"Stable event and participant reference","domain_realization":"Source-scoped episode and probe identifiers link measurements to functional courtroom positions while allowing seat moves, role substitutions, failed channels, and protected identities to remain explicit or unresolved."},{"archetype_element":"Event time, record time, and ordering","domain_realization":"Acoustic occurrence time, instrument sampling sequence, clerk entry time, calibration-review time, and computational tie-breaks are declared separately; uncertain alignment remains an interval or partial order."},{"archetype_element":"Transformation delta","domain_realization":"Each event states the measured change in received level, background condition, channel continuity, probe validity, position, or remediation status rather than merely recording that a hearing was in progress."},{"archetype_element":"Correction and supersession lineage","domain_realization":"A failed calibration, revised episode boundary, corrected position binding, complaint, or repetition appends a linked record without deleting the measurement state originally captured."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned projection definition","domain_realization":"Each position-by-episode or hearing-coverage view declares included probes and events, calibration requirements, threshold definitions, uncertainty treatment, projector version, frontier, and output limitations."},{"archetype_element":"Replay, reconciliation, and completeness","domain_realization":"Pinned replay rebuilds trajectories from measurement events and checks them against channel, calibration, timing, and coverage invariants while explicitly identifying uninstrumented positions and invalid intervals."},{"archetype_element":"Retention, minimization, and access","domain_realization":"Probes retain only acoustic features insufficient to reconstruct speech; protected role identities are minimized, access is purpose-limited, and deletion or sealing obligations propagate to projections and exports."}],"substrate_contract":{"counterfactual_independence":"If databases, software projectors, automated alerts, organizational procedures, training, incentives, and digital control are removed, calibrated probes still physically transduce and locally record the received acoustic conditions at distinct courtroom positions, and their traces can be aligned and reviewed manually. Removing the probes eliminates the essential position-specific evidence, so measurement instrumentation—not a wrapper—supplies the intervention's primary effect.","forbidden_channel_audit":"Governance defines authorization and legal response but does not create the acoustic evidence; training supports placement but does not measure sound; software may align, replay, or display events but does not replace physical transduction; no algorithm, model, database, information-routing rule, incentive, or automated control determines audibility, comprehension, prejudice, or remedy. The design excludes voice identification, speech recognition, semantic analysis, credibility scoring, and automatic adjudication.","primary_allowed_process":"MEASUREMENT_INSTRUMENTATION"},"title":"Seat-Level Acoustic Event Record for Adjudicative Hearings","version":0},"schema_version":1}