{"actors":["Narratologists analyzing temporal and epistemic structure","Digital-humanities researchers encoding narrative form","Teachers constructing chronology and focalization exercises","Readers comparing plot, disclosure, and character-knowledge views","Text custodians authorizing passage-level use"],"affected_objective":"Reconstructible analysis of how a literary work's represented happenings generate plot chronology, disclosure order, character knowledge, focalization, and alternative periodizations.","arm":"ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A project lead may authorize only an isolated, read-only pilot on one lawfully accessible literary work, using passage references and minimal excerpts to encode a bounded set of represented happenings.","decision_authority":"Text custodians control source access; participating narratologists approve the event contract and projection rules; unresolved interpretive classifications remain visibly disputed; the project lead may accept pilot encodings but may not declare one reconstruction the definitive meaning of the work.","excluded_actions":["Modifying the literary work or its authorized edition","Treating an encoded diegetic event as a real-world occurrence","Declaring one fabula, causal chain, focalization, or character-knowledge projection uniquely correct","Inferring authorial intent from event sequence or projector output","Publishing copyrighted text beyond authorized quotation limits","Collecting reader behavior or student performance data","Using the ledger to rank readers or adjudicate interpretive competence"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if the event contract repeatedly collapses narration, report, memory, fantasy, and occurrence, or if passage use exceeds authorization. Quarantine contested records, discard all derived views, and return to the unchanged source text and annotations; correct retained pilot records only through linked supersession or retraction."},"baseline":"A bounded narrative may be analyzed with plot summaries, character lists, manually drawn timelines, passage annotations, and prose discussions of anachrony or focalization. These artifacts can encode different assumptions about represented occurrence, disclosure, memory, report, and character knowledge without an executable common substrate from which their differences can be rebuilt.","candidate_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__literature_literary_theory__ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Passage-grounded assertions about represented occurrences, reports, recollections, anticipations, fantasies, counterfactuals, and corrections are encoded as distinct typed events rather than compressed into one plot summary.","Stable event identities and participant–role bindings connect characters, narrators, objects, places, and embedded narratives while preserving disputed coreference, composite events, and alternative identity assignments.","Diegetic time, textual disclosure position, encoding time, partial order, concurrency, and asserted causal relations remain separate, preventing page order from silently becoming story chronology or causation.","Append-only correction preserves earlier encodings when a passage is reclassified, an identity is split, or a temporal relation is disputed.","Pinned projectors replay the accepted assertions into fabula chronology, syuzhet sequence, character-knowledge, focalization, and episode views under declared inclusion and uncertainty rules.","Projection frontiers and completeness statements reveal unencoded passages, unresolved temporal relations, and excluded embedded narratives instead of presenting a clean-looking view as exhaustive.","Rebuild-and-diff checks expose when a timeline, knowledge state, or episode boundary has drifted from the passage-grounded event assertions and projector contract."],"cell_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"A plot timeline or character-knowledge account can appear internally coherent while silently mixing what occurred in the represented world, what was merely narrated or imagined, when the reader learned it, and what a character could know. Conflicting analyses then cannot be localized to particular event assertions, passage anchors, ordering rules, or projection choices.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity makes represented happenings and discourse disclosures within a literary work canonical for narratological projections. Its affected problem, intervention, and causal path concern reconstruction of fabula, syuzhet, focalization, and character knowledge rather than the history of scholarly claims, editions, citations, responses, or interpretive corrections.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a governed Narrative Event Reconstruction Ledger for one bounded literary work. Define event-assertion types for diegetic occurrence, narrated report, recollection, anticipation, dream or fantasy, counterfactual, embedded-story event, interpretive inference, and encoding correction. Each record carries a stable identity, characters or narrating agents with roles, passage anchors, diegetic time or interval, textual disclosure position, encoding time, setting or narrative level, transformation delta, provenance, uncertainty, and validity status. The ledger accepts records idempotently and preserves competing assertions and linked corrections. Versioned projectors derive a fabula chronology, syuzhet sequence, character-knowledge state, focalization map, and alternative episode views, each exposing its rules, frontier, conflicts, and coverage limits.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, characters, objects, places, narrators, and embedded narratives revert to static containers, obscuring their changing roles across represented happenings.","mechanism_slug":"event_knowledge_graph","role":"Represents event assertions as primary nodes connected through typed participant roles, narrative levels, passage anchors, settings, and transformation relations."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, page order, inferred story time, and computational order can collapse into one chronology and manufacture unsupported precedence.","mechanism_slug":"deterministic_replay_protocol","role":"Replays explicit partial-order and tie-breaking rules through pinned projector versions to regenerate each analytical view."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, retries or overlapping passage encodings can multiply one represented happening and distort timelines or character-state transitions.","mechanism_slug":"event_replay_deduplication","role":"Uses stable source-scoped assertion identities and preserves uncertain event matches rather than automatically merging them."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, later reinterpretation of a memory, report, identity, or temporal relation can erase the earlier analytical state and its rationale.","mechanism_slug":"compensating_event_correction","role":"Appends linked correction, split, merge, retraction, or supersession records while retaining prior encoding states."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without it, fabula, syuzhet, focalization, and character-knowledge diagrams become independently editable accounts with no reproducible relation to the encoded passages.","mechanism_slug":"event_sourced_projection","role":"Builds each named narratological view from selected canonical assertions under declared evidence, ordering, and uncertainty policies."}],"nearest_rivals":["A manually drawn plot timeline can display inferred chronology but need not distinguish occurrence, report, memory, fantasy, disclosure position, partial order, or correction lineage.","A character or setting knowledge graph can connect entities and passages but does not necessarily make bounded transformations canonical or rebuild temporal state through replay.","Narratological markup can annotate tense, focalization, or narrative level while leaving cross-passage event identity, deduplication, corrections, and derived-view contracts unspecified.","A concordance or passage-annotation system retrieves textual evidence but does not reconstruct fabula, knowledge states, or alternative episode projections from a governed event substrate."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"Under a frozen passage packet and event contract, independent encoders cannot achieve usable agreement on event boundaries, assertion type, narrative level, participants, transformation, or temporal relations; or clean replay cannot reproduce the pilot's declared chronology and character-knowledge views.","problem_falsifier":"For the selected work and questions, existing passage annotations and a simple manually maintained timeline reproduce every scoped chronology, disclosure, focalization, and character-knowledge view—including disputed and revised states—without hidden ordering assumptions or independent reconciliation work.","risks":["Discrete event boundaries may falsify narration that is iterative, habitual, continuous, allegorical, or deliberately indeterminate.","The schema may privilege realist event ontology over lyrical, experimental, oral, or non-Western narrative forms.","Encoding inference status may lend administrative authority to contestable readings.","Page or line anchors can vary across editions and create false precision.","Temporal precedence may be misread as narrative or psychological causation.","Passage storage may exceed copyright permissions.","Fine-grained encoding may impose disproportionate interpretive labor."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Some literary works make event identity, chronology, agency, and world boundaries constitutively undecidable; forcing their passages into replayable event assertions may remove the ambiguity that the analysis should preserve, making passage-level commentary a more faithful representation."},"next_evidence_step":"Choose one lawfully accessible short work containing at least one anachrony, one reported or remembered happening, and one disputed temporal or identity relation. Freeze no more than 40 passages; have two encoders independently create no more than 60 event assertions under a preregistered contract; then replay three projections: fabula chronology, textual disclosure order, and one character-knowledge state. Record boundary disagreements, unresolved partial orders, duplicate matches, projection diffs, omitted-event classes, and quotation-permission issues without publishing or operationalizing the ledger.","observable_state":"For one bounded work, two plot aids or analytical annotations disagree about the order, actuality, participants, narrative level, or character availability of the same represented happening, and neither can regenerate its conclusion from passage-grounded assertions plus explicit ordering and uncertainty rules.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"In a bounded narratological analysis, plot summaries, timelines, and character-state diagrams may treat represented happenings as settled current-state facts. They can conflate diegetic occurrence with narratorial report, memory, fantasy, counterfactual, or textual disclosure and can silently flatten uncertain chronology. As a result, alternative fabula, focalization, and character-knowledge views cannot be consistently reconstructed or compared from the same passage-level evidence.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For a literary work whose represented chronology, actuality, narrative level, or distribution of knowledge is contested, canonical passage-grounded event assertions should permit multiple rebuildable narratological projections while keeping uncertainty and disclosure order explicit; a timeline, entity graph, markup layer, or annotation system supplies the same capability only if it also implements equivalent event identity, transformation, correction, frontier, ordering, and replay contracts.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial version; no novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect-size claim is made."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial formulation centers represented happenings and discourse disclosures within a literary work as the event substrate.","Occurrence, report, recollection, anticipation, fantasy, counterfactual, and inference are separated rather than treated as equivalent plot facts."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence or prior-art search was used; the proposal was derived closed-book from the supplied archetype, domain context, and sealed P1."],"operational_changes":["The first test is limited to one short work, 40 passages, 60 event assertions, two encoders, and three read-only projections."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Material independence from P1 in problem, intervention, and causal path","Preservation of canonical-event and replayable-projection structure","Explicit uncertainty, partial-order, and correction handling","Bounded authority and copyright safeguards","Problem and intervention falsifiers"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Canonical bounded event assertion","domain_realization":"A passage-grounded assertion that a diegetic occurrence, report, recollection, anticipation, fantasy, counterfactual, embedded event, or encoding correction has a defined narrative function and transformation."},{"archetype_element":"Event identity key","domain_realization":"A stable source-scoped identifier distinguishes a represented happening from its repeated tellings, competing reconstructions, and duplicate encodings without forcing uncertain matches."},{"archetype_element":"Participant–role binding","domain_realization":"Typed roles distinguish actor, experiencer, observer, reporter, rememberer, imagined participant, narrator, affected object, and focalizing consciousness."},{"archetype_element":"Event time, record time, and disclosure position","domain_realization":"Inferred diegetic time is kept separate from textual presentation order and from the time an encoder recorded or corrected the assertion."},{"archetype_element":"Place and context binding","domain_realization":"Each assertion identifies setting, narrative level, embedded-story context, and uncertain or shifting spatial reference without projecting one setting across all tellings."},{"archetype_element":"Transformation delta","domain_realization":"The record states what the happening creates, changes, reveals, transfers, destroys, authorizes, or causes a character or reader to learn, with inference status visible."},{"archetype_element":"Ordering and concurrency semantics","domain_realization":"Textual order, diegetic partial order, explicit retrospective or prospective links, simultaneity, computational tie-breaks, and asserted causality are represented separately."},{"archetype_element":"Correction and supersession lineage","domain_realization":"Reclassifying a passage, splitting a composite event, merging repeated tellings, or revising a temporal relation appends a linked record rather than silently replacing the earlier encoding."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned projection definition","domain_realization":"Pinned projectors declare which assertion types, narrative levels, evidence statuses, temporal rules, and uncertainty treatments generate fabula, syuzhet, focalization, knowledge-state, or episode views."},{"archetype_element":"Projection frontier and completeness statement","domain_realization":"Each view states the passages and narrative levels processed, unresolved identities and orders, excluded paratexts or editions, and event classes the schema may miss."},{"archetype_element":"Replay, reconciliation, and rebuild","domain_realization":"A clean replay regenerates analytical views from the ledger and compares them with live outputs; drift is repaired through event or projector correction rather than direct diagram edits."},{"archetype_element":"Retention, redaction, and access policy","domain_realization":"The pilot retains passage identifiers and minimal authorized quotations, separates restricted text from derived metadata, and propagates deletion or access changes to projections and indexes."}],"title":"Narrative Event Reconstruction Ledger","version":0}