{"actors":["Literary scholars making and revising interpretations","Editors and textual scholars maintaining editions and witnesses","Archivists and librarians controlling source records","Research assistants encoding bounded scholarly events","Readers consulting claim, passage, and reception-history views"],"affected_objective":"Reconstructible and contestable accounts of how passage-level evidence, textual states, and critical responses produced the accepted, disputed, or superseded state of a literary interpretation.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A project lead may authorize only a read-only retrospective encoding exercise using already accessible publications and edition records in an isolated research workspace.","decision_authority":"Source custodians retain access authority; participating textual scholars approve witness and passage mappings; scholars familiar with the selected controversy adjudicate consequential event-boundary or identity disputes; the project lead may accept a pilot schema but may not declare an interpretation true.","excluded_actions":["Editing literary works, editions, bibliographic records, or source publications","Automatically ranking scholars, interpretations, or critical schools","Treating an encoded assertion or adjudication status as proof of literary truth","Publishing private annotations, confidential peer review, or restricted archival material","Inferring causation, intent, influence, or plagiarism from temporal sequence alone","Deploying the pilot ledger as an authoritative public reception history"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if event boundaries cannot distinguish scholarly action from the content of an interpretation, if source permissions are uncertain, or if replay materially misstates a documented position. Quarantine disputed encodings, discard derived projections, and return to the unchanged source publications; append corrections rather than silently altering any retained pilot events."},"baseline":"Researchers use articles, monographs, bibliographies, critical-edition apparatuses, citation indexes, annotations, and manually written reception histories. These preserve source documents but usually require a reader to reconstruct how a claim changed across textual witnesses, citations, responses, and corrections; summaries and diagrams can become independently edited accounts.","candidate_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__literature_literary_theory__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["A critic's published assertion, cited passage, edition dependency, challenge, revision, or retraction is captured as a distinct event assertion rather than folded into a current claim record.","Stable event and participant references connect critics, works, witnesses, passages, claims, venues, and responses while leaving uncertain identity matches unresolved.","Event time and record time preserve both when a scholarly act occurred and when the project learned of it; typed relations distinguish publication order, response order, claimed influence, and computational tie-breaking.","Append-only correction retains earlier knowledge states and prevents a later summary or emendation from silently replacing the position previously available to readers.","Pinned projectors replay selected events into claim-state, passage-reception, edition-dependency, and decision-time views under declared evidence and uncertainty rules.","Visible frontiers, excluded sources, and unresolved conflicts show where a projection stops and prevent unrecorded criticism from being treated as nonexistent.","Rebuild-and-diff checks reveal projection drift, permitting repair from the event assertions instead of manual patching of reception-history views."],"cell_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"A reader may see a critic's supposed current position or a clean genealogy of an interpretation without being able to determine which textual witness, passage, prior claim, later correction, or disputed attribution produced it. Changes in editions and retrospective summaries can therefore yield inconsistent accounts that cannot reproduce what was knowable at an earlier publication date.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"No prior proposals or cells were inspected under runtime isolation. This candidate is internally differentiated from narrative-event modeling by making scholarly interpretive acts and evidence-state changes—not events represented inside literary works—the canonical events.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a governed Interpretive Claim Event Ledger for one bounded literary controversy. Define event types such as textual-witness registration, passage citation, interpretive assertion, evidentiary inference, published challenge, revision, retraction, and scoped adjudication. Each event records a stable identity, participants and roles, work and edition context, passage anchors, event and record times, the relation or claim-state delta, provenance, uncertainty, and validity status. Corrections are linked append-only events. Versioned projectors derive a critic-position view, a passage-reception trajectory, an edition-dependency view, and a record-time view, each exposing its frontier, source coverage, conflicts, and projector version.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, corrections and retrospective discoveries can overwrite prior scholarly knowledge states, preventing record-time reconstruction.","mechanism_slug":"bitemporal_event_register","role":"Separates the date of publication or scholarly action from the date it was discovered, encoded, corrected, or adjudicated."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, the same assertion, response, or imported bibliography record may be applied repeatedly and distort derived claim histories.","mechanism_slug":"event_replay_deduplication","role":"Uses stable, source-scoped identities and idempotent acceptance for publications, assertions, challenges, and corrections."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, claim summaries and reception histories remain independently editable interpretations that cannot be regenerated from shared evidence.","mechanism_slug":"event_sourced_projection","role":"Derives claim-state, passage-reception, edition-dependency, and decision-time views from accepted event assertions."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, a live view can drift from its sources or change when replayed under undocumented rules.","mechanism_slug":"deterministic_replay_protocol","role":"Replays a declared partial order through a pinned projector and checks identifiers, counts, lineage, and claim-state invariants."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, competing attributions, dates, passage mappings, and interpretations are prematurely collapsed into one account.","mechanism_slug":"provenance_weighted_event_reconciliation","role":"Retains conflicting event assertions and projects them according to an explicit inclusion or adjudication policy."}],"nearest_rivals":["A citation or argument graph links works, claims, and evidence but need not preserve bounded scholarly events, dual time, correction lineage, or replayable historical states.","A versioned critical edition and its apparatus preserve textual witnesses and emendations but do not by themselves reconstruct downstream assertions, challenges, and interpretive projections.","A reception-history narrative or manually edited timeline can explain a controversy but embeds selection and ordering in prose rather than exposing a rebuildable projection contract and frontier.","An annotation platform audit log records edits but generally lacks semantic event boundaries, participant roles, textual-state deltas, uncertainty policies, and claim-specific replay."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"Using a frozen source packet, independent encoders cannot apply the event contract with acceptable agreement on event identity, type, participants, passage anchors, and deltas, or a clean replay fails to reproduce the pilot's documented claim-state views and prior record-time states.","problem_falsifier":"For the selected controversy, existing edition apparatuses, citations, and version records already reproduce every scoped claim state, correction lineage, textual dependency, and earlier knowledge state without manual historical reconstruction or independently maintained summaries.","risks":["Encoding recursive interpretation as discrete events may create false boundaries and precision.","Schema choices may privilege canonical publications, institutions, languages, or schools while hiding informal and marginalized criticism.","Recording unpublished reading activity or peer review could become surveillance of scholars.","Central adjudication may turn contestable interpretation into administrative status.","Temporal proximity may be mistaken for intellectual influence or causation.","Fine-grained encoding and replay may impose labor disproportionate to the bounded research question."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Literary interpretation may be too continuous, recursive, and context-dependent for assertion, inference, revision, and adjudication to form stable event boundaries; source documents plus ordinary citation and versioning may preserve the relevant history more faithfully than a canonical event schema."},"next_evidence_step":"Select one publicly documented controversy involving one literary work, at least two textual states, and a published correction or response. Freeze a source packet of no more than 20 documents; have two encoders independently encode no more than 75 events under a preregistered event contract; then test deduplication, disputed-identity handling, reconstruction of two record-time claim states, and deterministic rebuild of three named projections. Report disagreements, missing-event classes, replay diffs, and privacy issues without operational deployment.","observable_state":"Within a bounded controversy, two current summaries or databases assign incompatible states, dates, passage anchors, or source dependencies to the same interpretive claim, and neither exposes an executable lineage that reconstructs the discrepancy from publications, editions, responses, and corrections.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Literary controversies are commonly represented through final-position summaries, citations, and prose reception histories even when interpretations depend on changing editions, passage-level evidence, responses, and later corrections. These current-state representations conflate what a critic asserted, what an editor reported, what a later scholar inferred, and what was subsequently revised, making earlier knowledge states and alternative reception views difficult to reconstruct consistently.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For a bounded literary controversy whose interpretation changes with textual witnesses and published responses, making scholarly assertion and correction events canonical should permit record-time reconstruction and multiple transparent reception projections from one governed substrate; citation graphs, edition apparatuses, prose histories, and edit logs do not provide that full combination unless augmented with equivalent event identity, dual-time, correction, frontier, and replay semantics.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial version; no novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect-size claim is made."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial formulation distinguishes events in scholarly interpretation from events represented within a literary narrative."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence or prior-art search was used; the candidate was derived closed-book from the supplied records."],"operational_changes":["Initial bounded pilot limits the corpus, event count, projections, authority, and permitted data sources."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete domain problem and observable failure state","Causal preservation of event primacy and replayable projections","Explicit authority boundaries and safeguards","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Bounded first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Canonical bounded event assertion","domain_realization":"A documented scholarly act or assertion such as registering a textual witness, citing a passage, publishing an interpretation, challenging it, revising it, retracting it, or recording a scoped adjudication."},{"archetype_element":"Participant–role binding","domain_realization":"Typed links identify critic, editor, respondent, work, textual witness, passage, claim, venue, and evidentiary source without equating authorship, report, agreement, or influence."},{"archetype_element":"Event time and record time","domain_realization":"Publication or action date is kept separate from cataloging, discovery, encoding, correction, and adjudication dates, with uncertain intervals allowed."},{"archetype_element":"Transformation delta","domain_realization":"Each event states the relation changed: a claim was created, supported, narrowed, contradicted, attributed, superseded, retracted, or remapped to a different textual state."},{"archetype_element":"Ordering and concurrency semantics","domain_realization":"Publication chronology, explicit response links, source-local sequence, and computational tie-breaks are recorded separately; sequence alone does not establish influence or causation."},{"archetype_element":"Correction and supersession lineage","domain_realization":"A corrected attribution, passage anchor, date, or interpretation appends a linked record while preserving what the earlier reception view showed."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned projection definition","domain_realization":"Named projectors derive critic-position, passage-reception, edition-dependency, and record-time views from declared event types, evidence statuses, order rules, and uncertainty treatments."},{"archetype_element":"Projection frontier and completeness statement","domain_realization":"Every view states the latest encoded source, covered venues, languages and dates, unresolved conflicts, inaccessible material, and known exclusions."},{"archetype_element":"Replay, reconciliation, and rebuild","domain_realization":"A pinned projector regenerates each view from the ledger and compares it with the live result; discrepancies trigger correction or rebuild rather than direct view edits."},{"archetype_element":"Retention, redaction, and access policy","domain_realization":"The pilot uses public scholarship and authorized archival metadata, minimizes personal data, excludes private reading behavior and peer review, and propagates any required redaction to projections."}],"title":"Interpretive Claim Event Ledger","version":0}