{"actors":["Project editor who owns the ledger boundary and review cadence","Contributing literary scholars who register and resolve interpretive dependencies","Textual editor or research assistant who verifies passage citations and status changes","Independent reviewer who assesses argument traceability without adjudicating theoretical correctness"],"affected_objective":"Maintain a traceable, internally coherent literary interpretation across successive drafts while preserving explicitly marked speculation and theoretical disagreement.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The project editor may authorize a read-only reconstruction of the ledger from existing draft history and a time-limited prospective pilot; no claim may be altered solely because of its ledger status.","decision_authority":"Contributors retain authority over their claims, while the project editor controls workflow status and publication readiness; substantive disputes remain subject to ordinary scholarly review.","excluded_actions":["Automatically rejecting an interpretation because it exceeds a numerical threshold","Using ledger counts to rank or discipline contributors","Treating theoretical disagreement as an unsupported dependency merely because consensus is absent","Deleting minority, speculative, or politically sensitive readings without substantive review","Changing quoted text, citations, or claim status without an attributable human decision"],"halt_rollback":"Halt the pilot and return to the ordinary editorial workflow if contributors begin suppressing legitimate conjectures, status categories cannot be applied consistently, administrative effort obstructs textual analysis, or claims are displaced into untracked notes; preserve the ledger only as an audit record."},"baseline":"Under the existing draft-by-draft editorial workflow, record for eight weeks the weekly stock of unresolved interpretive dependencies, their ages, new arrivals, resolutions, transfers, and later reviewer rediscoveries without introducing thresholds or clearance sessions.","candidate_id":"stock_flow_accumulation_control__literature_literary_theory__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["Successive drafts introduce interpretive propositions that depend on uncited passages, unstated inferential steps, or unresolved contradictions.","Some tentative propositions become load-bearing premises, while others persist because revision attention follows newly written material rather than accumulated dependencies.","Editors observe the current rate of comments or revisions but lack a bounded measure of unresolved dependencies carried across drafts.","The persistent stock can therefore approach the project's review capacity even when few new issues appear in a given week.","A claim ledger distinguishes the accumulated level from weekly inflow and clearance and reconciles every status transition.","A provisional capacity band and age warning trigger a clearance review that links claims to textual evidence, qualifies them, explicitly preserves them as conjectures, resolves conflicts, or retires them.","Monitoring transfers to footnotes, appendices, private notes, and successor drafts tests whether apparent clearance is genuine or displaced.","Retuning or retiring the controls after sustained in-band turnover prevents the ledger from becoming a permanent substitute for scholarly judgment."],"cell_id":"stock_flow_accumulation_control__literature_literary_theory","consequence":"The final argument may depend on a cumulative layer of weakly evidenced or mutually incompatible propositions that becomes visible only during late peer review, prompting extensive reconstruction or obscuring which textual details support which conclusions.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"The candidate realizes accumulation control as governance of persistent interpretive dependencies within a changing literary-critical argument, with explicit protection for conjecture and dissent rather than treating all open claims as defects.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Install an interpretive claim-debt ledger for one collaborative critical edition or article. Define the stock as active propositions inside the designated manuscript and associated notes that are used by another claim but still lack an agreed evidence link, an explicit inferential warrant, or a recorded disposition of a material contradiction. Count propositions as stock units and review weekly. Record inflows from new dependencies, conversions from tentative notes into load-bearing premises, transfers into or out of appendices and footnotes, and outflows through grounding, qualification, explicit conjecture status, conflict resolution, or retirement. Reconcile observed stock change to these flows, investigate residuals, and use a provisional editor-capacity band plus an age threshold to schedule clearance reviews. Monitor untracked notes and successor drafts for displaced accumulation.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without reconciliation, status changes and missing claims could be mistaken for genuine resolution, so the measured stock would not reliably represent manuscript carryover.","mechanism_slug":"stock_flow_balance_reconciliation","role":"A weekly balance equation compares the prior stock plus new, converted, and transferred-in dependencies minus grounded, qualified, retired, and transferred-out dependencies with the observed current stock; discrepancies become an explicit residual."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a lever tied to net flow, the ledger would merely describe accumulated problems while drafting continued to add dependencies faster than editorial review could dispose of them.","mechanism_slug":"net_flow_lever_adjustment","role":"When the stock exceeds the provisional review-capacity band, the editor can pause promotion of tentative notes into load-bearing premises and schedule a focused clearance session."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without turnover tuning, a one-time cleanup could lower the count while old unresolved dependencies continued to survive across revision cycles.","mechanism_slug":"clearance_turnover_tuning","role":"Age-specific review ensures that long-lived dependencies receive an attributable disposition rather than remaining indefinitely open."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without probing coupled locations, contributors could make the manuscript appear clear by moving unresolved claims into footnotes, appendices, private notes, or later chapters.","mechanism_slug":"hidden_accumulation_probe","role":"The review samples adjacent document stores and tracks transfers so clearance in the main manuscript is not credited when the same dependency persists elsewhere."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without compensating for editorial lag, controls could oscillate between premature closure and emergency cleanup because recent resolutions have not yet propagated through dependent claims.","mechanism_slug":"delay_compensated_control","role":"Threshold decisions distinguish newly opened claims from claims older than two review cycles and account for the delay between resolving a premise and revising its dependents."}],"nearest_rivals":["Ordinary peer review, which evaluates submitted arguments episodically but does not reconcile a persistent stock across drafts","Close reading checklists, which bind claims to textual details but do not govern accumulated unresolved dependencies over time","Argument mapping, which represents inferential structure at a point in time but need not measure inflow, clearance, aging, or displacement","Comment-resolution workflows, which track editorial tasks but can equate closing a comment with resolving the interpretive dependency","Citation audits, which test source linkage but do not cover unstated warrants, contradictions, conversions, or coupled stocks"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for this setting if ledger reconciliation remains unreliable, the prospective pilot does not change the age or trajectory of unresolved dependencies relative to baseline, or apparent clearance is matched by transfers into untracked locations without improved reviewer traceability.","problem_falsifier":"The proposed problem is absent if reconstructed draft histories show that alleged dependencies do not persist across review cycles, cannot be identified independently by reviewers, or have no separable accumulated level beyond the current rate of drafting and commenting.","risks":["Contributors may avoid recording speculative or heterodox interpretations to keep the stock low.","Operational categories may impose false commensurability across rival theoretical vocabularies.","Editors may mistake a capacity threshold for a standard of interpretive truth.","Claims may be relabeled or moved outside the accounting boundary to improve the visible count.","Ledger maintenance may divert attention from close reading and substantive argument.","A low stock may reflect premature closure rather than a well-supported interpretation."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Independent reviewers may find that ordinary manuscript rereading already reconstructs unresolved dependencies reliably and that ledger-defined stock or age has no relationship to later requests for clarification, qualification, or structural revision."},"next_evidence_step":"For one consenting collaborative literary project, reconstruct eight weeks of draft history, have two reviewers independently code unresolved dependencies and their flows, reconcile disagreements, then run a six-week prospective pilot using a provisional band of no more than five active dependencies and an age warning after two weekly reviews. Compare coding agreement, unexplained balance residuals, dependency age, reviewer rediscovery, and transfers to adjacent document stores; do not generalize beyond this case.","observable_state":"A versioned weekly ledger showing the number and age of active interpretive dependencies within the manuscript boundary; each entry identifies the dependent claim, cited passage or missing evidence, inferential-warrant status, contradiction status, owner, location, theoretical framing, creation date, transfers, and final disposition. The balance is S(t+1)=S(t)+new+promoted+transferred-in−grounded−qualified−retired−transferred-out, with unmatched changes recorded as residuals.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"In a collaborative literary-critical manuscript, unresolved interpretive dependencies persist across drafts: claims become premises for later claims before their textual evidence, inferential warrants, or conflicts with competing readings are settled. Editors monitor new comments and current revisions, but not the accumulated level, age, or migration of these dependencies, allowing a small weekly inflow to produce a large hidden stock.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Unlike peer review, close-reading checklists, argument maps, or comment closure considered separately, the proposed control treats unresolved interpretive dependencies as a persistent stock whose level must be reconciled to time-indexed creation, conversion, clearance, and transfer flows while protecting explicitly designated conjecture and disagreement.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial candidate; no claims of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial mapping of stock-flow accumulation control to unresolved interpretive dependencies in collaborative literary scholarship."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence consulted; prior art remains unsearched."],"operational_changes":["Specified the stock unit, manuscript boundary, weekly cadence, balance equation, provisional thresholds, coupled document stores, safeguards, falsifiers, and bounded pilot."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Complete first-slot reverse-innovation candidate","Concrete domain problem and intervention","Causal, structural, and mechanism preservation","Authority boundaries and safeguards","Negative tests and bounded first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Persistent stock with a defined unit, boundary, owner, source, and cadence","domain_realization":"Active unresolved interpretive dependencies counted as propositions within one manuscript and its designated notes, owned by the project editor and measured from version history each week."},{"archetype_element":"Inflow, conversion, outflow, clearance, leakage, decay, and transfer paths","domain_realization":"New unsupported dependencies enter; tentative notes convert into load-bearing premises; evidence linkage, qualification, explicit conjecture status, conflict resolution, or retirement remove them; footnotes, appendices, private notes, and successor drafts create transfer or leakage paths."},{"archetype_element":"Net-flow balance and residual reconciliation","domain_realization":"Each weekly observed stock change is compared with recorded entries, promotions, dispositions, and transfers, with unexplained changes investigated rather than assumed to be clearance."},{"archetype_element":"Target band, warning threshold, and capacity limit","domain_realization":"A provisional band of at most five active dependencies reflects the editor's review capacity, while any entry surviving two weekly reviews triggers an age warning; both parameters remain subject to pilot calibration."},{"archetype_element":"Levers that alter long-run accumulation","domain_realization":"The editor can slow conversion of tentative notes into premises, require evidence or conjecture labels before downstream reuse, add focused clearance time, or narrow the manuscript boundary explicitly."},{"archetype_element":"Delays, feedback, saturation, and coupled stocks","domain_realization":"The design accounts for delayed revision of dependent claims, pressure to close entries near thresholds, limited reviewer capacity, and displacement into adjacent document stores."},{"archetype_element":"Post-intervention monitoring and control retirement","domain_realization":"Weekly trajectories, entry ages, residuals, and transfers are monitored during the pilot; controls are relaxed, retuned, or retired if turnover remains within the intended capacity band or if harms outweigh informational value."}],"title":"Interpretive Claim-Debt Ledger for Collaborative Literary Criticism","version":0}