{"dossiers":[{"portfolio_id":"EXP04-STRICT-05","plain_language_title":"Protected Quiet Periods Between Neural Stimuli","one_sentence_summary":"Explicitly reserved, carefully labeled periods without stimulation could reveal whether apparent neural responses reflect the current stimulus or lingering effects from earlier ones.","problem_plain":"A closed-loop neural experiment may deliver another stimulus whenever timing and safety rules allow, treating unused time as wasted. If the brain has not returned to a stable reference state, responses can overlap with residual activation, adaptation, or changing neural state. Researchers may then attribute a response to the current stimulus when part of it came from preceding trials. Sparse or ambiguously recorded quiet periods also make scheduling histories harder to compare and reproduce.","proposal_plain":"The experiment generator would omit selected low-priority stimuli at genuine block or state boundaries and protect the resulting null epochs from automatic backfilling. Recording, synchronization, contextual logging, and safety monitoring would continue throughout each pause. Codes would distinguish an intentional pause, a recovery-triggered pause, an operator decision, and equipment or command failure. Stimulation would resume at a predeclared time or when an approved recovery measure reached a bounded criterion, with a maximum pause and manual override. The comparator is a dense schedule paired with the best history-dependent response model; additional comparisons include a uniformly longer interval and randomized omission. The aim is to separate stimulus effects from sequence-history effects without sacrificing unacceptable condition coverage.","transfer_plain":"The negative-space archetype becomes deliberately protected time in the experiment schedule. The omitted event creates a measured reference interval connected to the next response, while explicit boundaries and state codes give the absence a clear meaning. The mapping is strong: the empty space is an active experimental condition, not merely slower scheduling or missing data.","why_it_advanced":"This candidate passed Experiment 4's strict researched-candidate bar because the problem is measurable, offline testing is feasible, the intervention has explicit safety and rollback boundaries, and its strongest rivals are directly comparable. STRICT_SUCCESS denotes passage of that research screen only; it does not establish real-world effectiveness, novelty, deployment permission, or economic value.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Null events, washout periods, adaptive stimulation, history-dependent models, and audit logs already exist, so this is adjacent prior art. The narrower open claim is that recovery-bounded, explicitly coded null epochs outperform dense scheduling with model correction, uniformly longer intervals, and random omission. Any advantage must remain after matching stimulated-trial count and elapsed time and must be large enough to justify reduced condition coverage.","test_and_decision":"Using one synchronized historical session, preregister a response model containing stimulus identity, recent history, elapsed time, and prestimulus state. Estimate recovery without held-out trials, then replay fixed-gap, recovery-threshold, and matched-random-omission policies. Compare held-out response error, stimulus-versus-history identifiability, baseline stability, coverage, and simulated duration against the dense schedule with its best history model and a uniformly longer interval. Reject the proposal if recovery-based spacing does not improve the preregistered identifiability measure, random omission or modeling matches it, coverage falls below its floor, or recovery estimates cannot support bounded resumption.","deployment_and_cost":"The authorized first step is offline analysis; live stimulation requires separate ethics, institutional-safety, and possibly device-regulatory approval. Estimated 2026 resource-equivalent bands are under $10,000 for first evidence, $10,000–$50,000 for initial deployment, $50,000–$250,000 for operational launch, and $10,000–$50,000 annually. These are assessment bands, not vendor quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Fewer stimulated trials may reduce statistical precision or leave required conditions underrepresented.","Replacing omitted trials could lengthen sessions, increasing participant fatigue or animal burden.","A recovery-triggered rule could preferentially sample particular neural states and introduce selection bias.","Faulty state codes could make equipment failure look like intentional silence.","An unreliable recovery signal could repeatedly suppress conditions or destabilize the closed loop."],"expert_types":["Closed-loop neural-stimulation researcher","Neural time-series statistician","Research ethics or animal-care specialist","Neurotechnology safety engineer","Experimental-design methodologist"],"expert_questions":["Can the available event-level data distinguish recovery dynamics from ordinary time drift and recent stimulus history?","What recovery measure and maximum pause could be specified without using held-out outcomes?","Which conditions must remain above a prespecified coverage floor after omissions?","Does model-based correction match the proposed schedule after trial count and elapsed time are equalized?","Which approvals would a live pilot require for the specific device, population, and protocol?"],"ranking_note":"A post-hoc harmonized score placed the candidate between ranks 2 and 6 across three reading profiles, in band A. This ordering is not an experimental endpoint or economic-value measure; its pilot-speed input is only a cost-affordability proxy.","source_ids_used":["S01","S02","S03","S04","S05","S06","S07","S08"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-06","plain_language_title":"A Safer Accessibility Testing Challenge","one_sentence_summary":"A sealed, batch-scored challenge would reward a complementary set of reproducible accessibility barriers instead of whichever reports arrive first.","problem_plain":"An accessibility bounty with a fixed reward pool can reward speed or report volume rather than useful discovery. Testers may submit scanner output, reserve findings before documenting them, split one barrier into several reports, or withhold reproduction details. Reviewers then spend time resolving duplicates while difficult, task-blocking barriers remain poorly described. Unequal automation, unsafe testing, and access to live or personal data can also shift costs onto users, maintainers, and less-resourced testers.","proposal_plain":"Run bounded rounds in a synthetic-data environment with equal access windows, scoped accounts, submission and request caps, sealed reports, and published rules. Reports must describe the affected task, starting state, interaction sequence, observed barrier, expected behavior, environment, reproducible evidence, and remediation-relevant trace. Authorization, privacy, fixture integrity, and reproducibility are mandatory gates. Verified reports are scored for task obstruction, clarity, reproducibility, distinctness, and repair usefulness. Awards are selected as a portfolio covering complementary journeys, interaction modes, and failure classes, rather than paid in filing order. Independent verification, separate appeals, predefined foul rules, recurring challenger entry, and post-round review address favoritism, sabotage, collusion, lock-in, and rubric gaming.","transfer_plain":"The bounded-rivalry archetype becomes a controlled contest for a finite accessibility reward pool. Rivalry remains, but a rulebook, equal resource ceilings, sealed batches, safety gates, portfolio awards, appeals, and recurring access limit how contestants can gain advantage. The structural mapping is direct, although whether rivalry adds value over collaboration remains untested.","why_it_advanced":"This candidate cleared the separate EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE lane because a controlled mock study can compare allocation systems without touching production. It did not pass the strict-success lane. Crucially, there is no field evidence that accessibility-specific rivalry improves coverage over a well-run paid panel, and no organization has committed authority, staff, funding, or an environment.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Accessibility audits, disability-led participatory testing, automated scanning, usability studies, and first-valid bug bounties already cover much of the work. The open claim concerns the combined allocation system: with expertise, scope, safety rules, and reward resources held constant, sealed batches, complementarity-based awards, and equal caps should yield more distinct, independently reproducible, repair-usable barriers per reviewer hour than either first-valid allocation or a noncompetitive paid panel, without added harm or exclusion.","test_and_decision":"Run a preregistered two-round crossover on an isolated prototype with synthetic accounts, four essential journeys, hidden seeded barriers, and about 12 compensated testers spanning assistive technologies and input modes. Compare the proposed challenge with a flat-fee panel, then rescore all reports under first-valid allocation. Measure distinct reproduced barriers, seed recall, coverage, repair usefulness, reviewer time, duplicates, fragmentation, burden, urgent-report delay, appeals, and safety events. Advance only if the portfolio condition beats both comparators by the prespecified material margin—suggested as 20% per reviewer hour—without worse safety, delay, or loss of manual work.","deployment_and_cost":"Begin with a nonmonetary mock using fictitious points and equal base compensation. Estimated 2026 resource-equivalent bands are $10,000–$50,000 for first evidence, $50,000–$250,000 for startup and operational launch, and $250,000–$1 million annually. No direct pricing or internal labor study confirms these bands; they are not vendor quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Submission caps may suppress slow, uncertain, manual, or assistive-technology-intensive findings.","Batch sealing may delay urgent accessibility or security disclosure.","Portfolio scoring may encode the sponsor's incomplete view of important journeys and interaction modes.","Identity or collusion screens may wrongly combine independent testers or treat suspicious patterns as guilt.","Synthetic journeys may omit contextual, longitudinal, or socially mediated barriers found in real use."],"expert_types":["Disabled accessibility tester","Accessibility evaluation methodologist","Bug-bounty program designer","Security and privacy reviewer","Experimental economist or contest-design researcher"],"expert_questions":["Can independent scorers apply the complementarity rubric consistently across assistive-technology configurations?","Do equal caps disproportionately exclude manual or assistive-technology-intensive investigation?","What urgent-disclosure path preserves safety without compromising sealed allocation?","Does the competitive condition outperform an equally funded noncompetitive panel after reviewer time is counted?","Which identity and collusion signals can support investigation without becoming automatic penalties?"],"ranking_note":"The post-hoc harmonized reading aid placed this candidate between ranks 6 and 9 across profiles, in band A. It does not change the partner-candidate endpoint or measure economic value; its pilot-speed input is a cost-affordability proxy.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-24","plain_language_title":"Consistent Rules for Climate Signpost Alerts","one_sentence_summary":"A representation-neutral behavioral contract would require spreadsheets, dashboards, and monitoring services to interpret the same climate signpost history in the same way.","problem_plain":"Coastal adaptation signposts may be copied among policy documents, spreadsheets, dashboards, and provider pipelines. Each implementation can handle dates, revisions, missing readings, sustained thresholds, units, acknowledgments, and retirement differently. Two systems can therefore produce different review alerts from the same observations even when their indicator names and displayed thresholds match. A software or data-source change may silently advance, delay, repeat, or suppress a policy review while officials believe the governing commitment is unchanged.","proposal_plain":"Create an Adaptive Signpost Register with defined operations for registering a versioned signpost, ingesting observations, marking missing periods, revising or retracting data, evaluating status, issuing and acknowledging alerts, suspending evaluation, superseding a signpost, and replaying history. The contract specifies units, time rules, persistence, missingness, revision behavior, typed errors, side effects, and lifecycle states. It requires provenance, an immutable event history, one active version, deterministic replay, and a firm separation between an advisory alert and authority to act. Storage layouts, formulas, provider payloads, caches, and visual presentation stay hidden. A replacement is accepted only if a shared black-box test suite produces the same governed states, alerts, errors, and audit records.","transfer_plain":"The representation-independent-interface archetype becomes a behavioral boundary around climate signposts. Different technical implementations may store and display data differently, but must expose the same operations, states, errors, replay behavior, and alerts. The mapping is strong at the software layer, though it cannot settle whether an indicator or threshold is scientifically or politically appropriate.","why_it_advanced":"This proposal cleared the EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE lane because two offline implementations and a synthetic event corpus can test behavioral equivalence safely. It did not enter the strict-success lane. There is no field measurement of signpost divergence, no integrated prototype comparison, and no coastal authority has committed specifications, staff, historical data, or adoption authority.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Adaptive pathways already use signposts and triggers; observation schemas, event sourcing, conformance tests, and migration reviews also exist. The remaining claim is narrower: independently built implementations following one behavioral contract should agree on governed outputs and expose more seeded semantic mistakes than schema validation plus manual spot checks. The contract fails if important divergences survive, approved semantics require provider-specific internals, or the existing comparator finds the same defects with materially less effort.","test_and_decision":"With a named authority, freeze two approved synthetic signpost specifications and 30 histories covering missingness, late and duplicate data, corrections, retractions, persistence, acknowledgments, suspensions, supersession, and replay. Seed at least 12 semantic mutations, including missing-as-zero, arrival-time ordering, one-sample breaches, destructive revisions, duplicate alerts, and hidden rounding. Separate people build an event-ledger model and spreadsheet adapter. Compare contract tests with schema validation plus current manual checks. Reject the proposal if any decision-relevant mutant is missed, conforming systems disagree, approved rules require implementation leakage, or the comparator achieves equivalent detection at materially lower staff effort.","deployment_and_cost":"The first step keeps synthetic observations and copied specifications offline; it must not issue live alerts or change policy thresholds. Estimated 2026 resource-equivalent bands are $10,000–$50,000 for first evidence, $50,000–$250,000 for startup, $250,000–$1 million for operational launch, and $50,000–$250,000 annually. These are not vendor quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Formal consistency may create false confidence in a weak indicator or poorly chosen threshold.","The contract may hide contested judgments about time, missingness, or revisions inside technical rules.","An incomplete test generator may omit consequential event sequences.","Overly strict tests may freeze harmless choices such as display rounding or notification format.","A conforming replacement may still have unacceptable latency or resource use outside the initial test."],"expert_types":["Climate adaptation-pathways specialist","Municipal resilience policy owner","Data-contract or API architect","Geospatial observation-data steward","Software conformance-testing specialist"],"expert_questions":["Can each approved signpost be expressed without provider-specific storage or payload fields?","Which states and alerts are advisory, and which authority separately initiates a policy review?","Does replay preserve the interpretation of histories created under earlier specification versions?","Which semantic mutations would materially alter a real review decision?","How much staff effort does the contract suite require compared with current schema and migration checks?"],"ranking_note":"The post-hoc harmonized aid ranked the candidate from 7 to 12 across reading profiles, in band A. This is neither an experimental endpoint nor an economic-value estimate; the pilot-speed input reflects cost-band affordability, not independently measured elapsed time.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-26","plain_language_title":"Remembering Why Financial Controls Exist","one_sentence_summary":"A carefully bounded reenactment would help control owners remember a control's verified origin, dependencies, and reciprocal duties, then route accepted changes through ordinary governance.","problem_plain":"A financial-reporting control may survive staff turnover as a checklist while its rationale and dependencies disappear. Preparers and reviewers can still perform the documented step without knowing which past failure it addresses, whose information it protects, what upstream inputs it assumes, or what conduct must continue. Generic certifications and refresher training may reinforce procedure without restoring that shared understanding. The result can be mechanical compliance, repeated handoff failures, obsolete controls, and false reassurance that remediation is complete.","proposal_plain":"Once each quarter, a cross-functional group would examine one cleared control family through a synthetic or redacted transaction path. A steward first verifies the history, separates fact from interpretation, removes protected information, and identifies affected stakeholders. Participants use functional roles and accessible cards to trace where information was lost, duplicated, misclassified, or repaired. Upstream and accounting roles exchange reciprocal commitments about reliable inputs, validation, feedback, and escalation. Recognition is optional and consent-based; participants may revise or decline proposed commitments without escaping formal job duties. Accepted changes move into authorized narratives, responsibility maps, remediation plans, budgets, or escalation records with owners and dates. Debrief and independent review may revise, pause, repair, or retire the practice.","transfer_plain":"The ritualized-meaning archetype becomes a marked, recurring examination of why a control exists and what people owe one another to keep it workable. Reenactment, symbolic framing, witnessing, reciprocal exchange, renewal, and retirement are present. The mapping is structurally clear, but evidence that these ritual features outperform simpler instruction in this domain is absent.","why_it_advanced":"This candidate cleared the EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE lane because a synthetic, content-matched trial can measure learning and harm without changing live controls. It did not pass the strict-success lane. No accounting-specific evidence shows added benefit over a walkthrough, and no controller, internal-control leader, audit committee, or funder has committed to a pilot.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Root-cause reports, training, simulations, certifications, governance software, audit testing, process mining, and ordinary knowledge transfer are established comparators. Ritual features have adjacent workplace and educational evidence, but not for durable financial-control operation. The open claim is that consent-governed symbolic reenactment, reciprocal obligation exchange, and revisable renewal improve seven-day recall, responsibility mapping, and workflow-ready follow-through beyond a content-equivalent walkthrough or ordinary training, without added coercion, blame, religious conflict, or confusion about control evidence.","test_and_decision":"Recruit 36–60 volunteers, stratified by tenure, into three equal-content and equal-time arms: the full cycle, a facilitated walkthrough without ritual features, and ordinary case-based training. Use only synthetic materials. Blind-score immediate and seven-day recall of facts, causal sequence, assertions, dependencies, duties, authority limits, escalation, and the boundary between learning artifacts and control evidence. Reject the proposal if the full cycle trails the best comparator by the prespecified 10-point advantage, adds no workflow-readiness benefit, produces blame or pressure above 10%, exposes opt-outs to supervisors, fails an accommodation, or causes anyone to treat ceremonial closure as proof of effectiveness.","deployment_and_cost":"The authorized first step is one synthetic 75-minute session with 8–12 volunteers; it cannot change or evaluate a live control. Estimated 2026 resource-equivalent bands are $10,000–$50,000 for first evidence and startup, and $50,000–$250,000 for operational launch and annual recurrence. No time study, wage benchmark, or quote validates these bands.","risks_and_uncertainties":["A selective origin story may legitimize leadership or suppress disputed facts.","Functional reenactment may still expose or symbolically blame identifiable employees.","Visible passing, silence, or dissent may become legible to supervisors despite formal consent rules.","Participants may mistake recognition or ceremonial closure for evidence that a control works or remediation is finished.","The practice may become costly training theater while underlying resources, authority, and incentives remain unchanged."],"expert_types":["Corporate controller or internal-control leader","Internal-audit specialist","Organizational learning researcher","Employment, privacy, and religious-accommodation adviser","Accessible facilitation and workplace-safety specialist"],"expert_questions":["Can the selected control history be verified and presented without exposing confidential or identifiable information?","Does the ritual arm improve seven-day recall beyond an otherwise identical walkthrough?","Can employees decline symbolic participation without supervisors learning or inferring that choice?","Do proposed commitments enter authorized remediation workflows with owners, resources, and dates?","Can participants reliably distinguish the learning exercise from control evidence, approval, or certification?"],"ranking_note":"The post-hoc harmonized aid placed this candidate between ranks 3 and 19 across profiles, in band A. The broad range reflects different reading priorities. It is not an experimental endpoint or economic-value measure, and affordability only proxies pilot speed.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}]}