{"actors":["Critical-edition editor responsible for introductions, notes, and document sequencing","Scholarly contributors who supply historical and interpretive annotations","Sample readers from the edition's intended readership strata","Publisher production lead who controls the release gate"],"affected_objective":"Help readers recover necessary historical or textual context while keeping legitimately contestable interpretations open rather than resolving them through the edition's paratext.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The editor may run a read-only pilot using duplicate page mockups and consenting sample readers; no production files or contributor text are changed during this step.","decision_authority":"The accountable editor decides whether to accept, revise, delay, or reject a paratext configuration; the model and reader panel remain advisory, and contributor approval is required for changes attributed to a contributor.","excluded_actions":["Automatically rewriting or deleting scholarly contributions","Treating predicted reader responses as the correct interpretation of the literary work","Collecting sensitive reader attributes not required for predefined readership strata","Releasing pilot variants as the finished edition","Using the gate to suppress documented minority interpretations merely because they are uncommon in the pilot"],"halt_rollback":"Halt the pilot if variants misquote the primary text, expose confidential production material, or produce unstable predictions across repeated coding. Discard the mockup-only adjustments and retain the existing production draft while the prediction method is reviewed."},"baseline":"The editor reviews introductions and annotations for scholarly accuracy, house style, and personal judgment, then corrects interpretive overreach only if reviewers or readers identify it after page proofs or publication.","candidate_id":"predictive_precommitment_correction__literature_literary_theory__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["An editor specifies a proposed paratext configuration and the acceptable envelope for contextual comprehension, interpretive foreclosure, and reader confusion.","Pilot readers encounter page-level mockups representing that configuration before the edition is committed.","A preregistered coding model uses their cited textual evidence, interpretation summaries, confidence, and unresolved questions to predict how readership strata would respond to the configuration.","The editor compares predicted comprehension and foreclosure indicators, with uncertainty bands, against the target envelope.","When a predicted gap exceeds a predefined threshold, the editor changes an adjustable variable such as note wording, note location, disclosure timing, introduction order, or cross-reference routing.","The production gate records acceptance, revision, delay, or escalation and prevents commitment of a configuration outside the envelope unless the editor documents an override.","After release, a bounded sample of realized reader responses is coded using the same rubric and compared with the forecast.","Forecast errors are retained to recalibrate or demote the model before a later edition or comparable volume."],"cell_id":"predictive_precommitment_correction__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"Once printing or fixed digital release occurs, paratext that prematurely resolves ambiguity or withholds indispensable context shapes reading before reception evidence is available; correction then requires errata, a new edition, or continued circulation of the original framing.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Runtime isolation prevents comparison with prior proposals; this candidate is internally centered on pre-release adjustment of editorial paratext using predicted interpretive trajectories, not on generating interpretations or repairing reception after publication.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Insert an interpretive-trajectory preflight before production commitment. For each proposed introduction, annotation set, and document sequence, expose controlled mockups to a small stratified reader panel; code what readers infer, which textual marks they cite, their confidence, and where they report confusion; use a preregistered model to predict contextual comprehension and interpretive foreclosure with uncertainty bands; and require the editor to accept, revise, delay, escalate, or reject the configuration. Restrict pre-corrections to traceable changes in wording, placement, timing, sequencing, and cross-referencing, then compare post-release responses with predictions for calibration.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the mockup-based consequence preview, the editor has no upstream estimate of how the combined text and paratext will shape interpretation before release.","mechanism_slug":"precommitment_what_if_simulation","role":"Controlled page mockups act as alternative prepublication worlds in which likely reader interpretations can be observed and modeled."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a binding release gate, predictions remain advisory and a configuration forecast outside the tolerance envelope can proceed without revision or an accountable override.","mechanism_slug":"staged_commitment_gate","role":"Production commitment is conditional on a recorded accept, revise, delay, escalate, or reject decision tied to the forecast and its uncertainty."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without comparing predicted and realized reader responses, forecast drift and systematic miscoding can persist while retaining undeserved authority.","mechanism_slug":"forecast_error_backtest","role":"Identically coded post-release responses create a calibration trace that can revise thresholds, model weights, or the model's advisory status."}],"nearest_rivals":["Conventional peer review checks scholarly soundness but does not necessarily predict a paratext configuration's reader-level consequence against an explicit tolerance envelope or gate release on that prediction.","Copyediting and proofreading correct language and production errors but do not model how wording, placement, and sequence jointly steer interpretation.","Ordinary reader-response research analyzes realized readings, often after exposure or publication, without necessarily converting a forecast into a precommitment editorial adjustment.","Sensitivity reading can identify representational harms through expert review, but the proposed mechanism specifically forecasts multiple interpretive trajectories, exposes uncertainty, and adjusts paratext before the production gate."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"In a blinded retrospective simulation, the model-guided gate fails to choose paratext configurations that land closer to the preregistered comprehension-and-openness envelope than the editor-only baseline, or its recommendations change materially under trivial recoding choices.","problem_falsifier":"Across candidate configurations, pilot readers show no reproducible differences in contextual comprehension, interpretive foreclosure, or confusion, or the publisher can cheaply and promptly revise the edition after release, eliminating the asserted costly commitment point.","risks":["A small or unrepresentative panel may encode one interpretive community as the readership norm.","Operationalizing interpretive openness may reward vagueness or penalize legitimate editorial argument.","Editors or contributors may game thresholds by narrowing the stated target envelope.","Forecast authority may displace accountable scholarly judgment despite formal override provisions.","Showing paratext variants may prime pilot readers and make their responses unlike ordinary reading.","A forecast can become self-defeating if revised notes create new interpretive cues absent from the tested configuration."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Literary interpretation may be too historically situated, reflexive, and heterogeneous for a small prepublication model to outperform transparent editorial judgment; apparent predictive accuracy may reflect the pilot rubric's own theory of reading rather than consequences in the eventual readership."},"next_evidence_step":"Using one public-domain literary passage and two already-drafted annotation layouts, recruit no more than 24 consenting readers across three predefined familiarity strata. Blindly assign layouts, collect interpretation summaries, cited textual marks, confidence, and confusion reports, and have two coders apply a rubric fixed before viewing responses. Use leave-one-out prediction to test whether early responses predict held-out readers' envelope classifications better than an editor-only rating. Make no production changes; stop after this single comparison and report calibration, coder agreement, uncertainty, and failure cases.","observable_state":"Before commitment, the editor can observe the exact paratext configuration; reader stratum; interpretation summaries; cited words or passages; contextual-comprehension items; confidence; unresolved questions; coded instances where a note is treated as dispositive; model predictions and uncertainty intervals; threshold crossings; recommended adjustments; and recorded overrides. After release, the same response fields plus prediction error form the calibration trace.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Critical-edition editors must commit introductions, annotations, and document order before printing or fixed digital release. These paratextual choices can supply needed context yet also preempt ambiguity by making one interpretation appear settled. Editors can still alter wording, placement, timing, and sequence before release, but they lack a structured upstream process that predicts the combined configuration's effect on different readers and converts a predicted gap into a gated revision.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate's distinguishing claim is structural: editorial commitment is conditioned on an uncertain, reader-response forecast that is translated into traceable paratext adjustments before release and later calibrated against realized readings; mere peer review, usability feedback, or postpublication reception analysis lacks at least one of those links.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial version; no claims of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size are made."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version maps predictive precommitment correction to ambiguity-preserving critical-edition design."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence was consulted; prior art remains unsearched."],"operational_changes":["Initial protocol bounds the first test to one public-domain passage, two annotation layouts, and at most 24 readers without changing production files."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete actors and costly commitment point","Observable prediction target and tolerance envelope","Adjustable editorial variables and accountable gate","Post-release calibration trace","Falsifiers, safeguards, risks, and bounded evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Commitment point after which correction is expensive or disruptive","domain_realization":"Release of print-ready files or a fixed digital edition, after which changing introductions, notes, or sequence requires errata or a new release."},{"archetype_element":"Intended action and target state","domain_realization":"Publish a specified configuration of primary text, introduction, annotations, and document order that provides necessary context while remaining within predefined bounds for confusion and interpretive foreclosure."},{"archetype_element":"Predictive consequence model upstream of commitment","domain_realization":"A preregistered reader-response model estimates how readership strata will understand context and whether they will treat editorial cues as dispositive."},{"archetype_element":"Predicted gap signal with uncertainty","domain_realization":"Forecasted comprehension or foreclosure falling outside the target envelope, accompanied by interval estimates and sensitivity to coding assumptions."},{"archetype_element":"Adjustable control variables","domain_realization":"Annotation wording, specificity, placement, disclosure timing, introduction sequence, document order, and cross-reference routing."},{"archetype_element":"Pre-correction rule","domain_realization":"Revise only when the predicted gap exceeds a predefined threshold; prefer small reversible layout or wording changes under moderate uncertainty and escalate large substantive changes."},{"archetype_element":"Staged commitment gate and override","domain_realization":"The production lead holds release until the accountable editor records acceptance, revision, delay, escalation, or a reasoned override."},{"archetype_element":"Post-action feedback and recalibration","domain_realization":"Realized reader responses are coded with the pilot rubric and compared with predictions so the model can be recalibrated or demoted."},{"archetype_element":"Safeguards against drift, false confidence, and gaming","domain_realization":"Visible uncertainty, stratified reporting, independent coding, logged overrides, fixed thresholds, model-validity checks, and retention of editor accountability."}],"title":"Interpretive-Trajectory Preflight for Critical-Edition Paratext","version":0}