{"dossiers":[{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-27","plain_language_title":"A Shared Pause for Audit Independence","one_sentence_summary":"At key engagement changes, an audit team would visibly separate client-service pressures from its duty to absent report users, route uncertain matters through official channels, and make consultation or role substitution socially legitimate.","problem_plain":"Audit firms already require independence checks, but completing a form does not ensure that a team confronts the purpose of independence together. During engagement acceptance, renewal, or scope changes, fees, staffing, deadlines, and client relationships may dominate discussion. Team members may struggle to identify the absent financial-statement users whom independence protects, raise uncertain services or relationships early, or step away from a role without appearing disloyal. The prevalence of this collective-meaning problem has not been measured directly.","proposal_plain":"At defined engagement triggers, the firm would hold a structured boundary cycle alongside—not instead of—its official independence process. Cards would represent the paying client relationship and the absent users relying on the audit, while an empty seat would make those users visible in the discussion. After private reflection, participants would sort invented or engagement-level service and role cards into ordinary processing, outside the engagement, or independent review. Personal facts would go only through confidential channels. The engagement sponsor would name commercial pressures, and an independent ethics witness would state limits the sponsor cannot override. Participants could speak, write, remain silent, or skip the symbolic portion. Every unresolved matter would then enter the authorized acceptance, staffing, consultation, or service-approval system with an owner, evidence requirement, decision authority, and deadline.","transfer_plain":"The source archetype uses a marked, recurring enactment to renew shared meaning and commitments. Here, the enactment represents absent report users, names commercial incentives, and recognizes consultation or role substitution. Its structural mapping is reasonably direct, but the ceremony itself never determines whether a person, service, or engagement satisfies independence requirements.","why_it_advanced":"This candidate cleared the separately calibrated empirical-partner lane because the underlying independence objective is consequential, a synthetic comparison is feasible, and the intervention has explicit authority and privacy safeguards. It did not enter the strict-success lane: no firm has requested it, and no field evidence shows that audit teams need or benefit from the ritual layer.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Independence confirmations, relationship monitoring, service preapproval, acceptance reviews, training, confidential consultation, staffing restrictions, and quality oversight already perform most operational functions. Ethical culture and group rituals provide adjacent support for the underlying rationale, not evidence for this design. The open claim is narrower: with official rules unchanged, does the marked group cycle improve recognition and correct routing of uncertain matters and perceived consultation safety beyond ordinary workflow, without adding coercion, privacy risk, false assurance, or authority confusion?","test_and_decision":"Preregister a synthetic two-arm tabletop with 12–16 participants per arm. Both groups receive the same invented engagement facts and mock confirmation, consultation, and acceptance workflow; only the treatment group receives the boundary cycle. A blinded reviewer would score recognition of absent-user interests and commercial incentives, identification and routing of uncertain matters, and rejection of group sorting as official approval. Also measure pressure, privacy, accessibility, consultation willingness, authority confusion, false assurance, and elapsed time. Reject the incremental claim if recognition or routing does not improve, a simpler comparator performs as well, or safeguards worsen materially.","deployment_and_cost":"The authorized first step is a tabletop using invented facts, not live client or personal information. Rough 2026 resource-equivalent bands are $10,000–$50,000 for first evidence, $50,000–$250,000 for initial setup, $250,000–$1 million for operational launch, and $250,000–$1 million annually. These are assessment bands, not vendor quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Silence, passing, or leaving could be interpreted as evidence that a participant has a personal conflict.","The empty seat could imply that all financial-statement users share one interest.","Group sorting could be mistaken for an official independence decision or evidence of unanimity.","A fee-owning partner could control the script while retaining practical power over staffing and revenue.","Personal financial, family, employment, or client-protected information could enter an unsuitable group setting despite the confidential route policy. Long-term use could become moral theater while incentives and retaliation risks remain unchanged."],"expert_types":["Audit-independence or professional-ethics specialist","Audit-firm quality-control leader","Employment and privacy counsel","Organizational-behavior researcher","Experimental-design and measurement specialist"],"expert_questions":["Do existing engagement processes already produce timely recognition and routing of the uncertain matters this cycle targets?","Which actions or participation records could create employment, privacy, privilege, or professional-standards exposure?","Can opting out, remaining silent, or requesting substitution be made credibly nonretaliatory in a partner-led team?","What prespecified difference would justify the added meeting time over an improved form plus confidential consultation?","How should reviewers detect whether participants mistake symbolic sorting or witnessed closure for official approval?"],"ranking_note":"The post-hoc harmonized ordering placed it in band C, with ranks 35–37 across profiles. That score is only a reading-order aid, uses cost as a pilot-affordability proxy, and does not measure economic value or change its empirical-partner endpoint.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP04-STRICT-01","plain_language_title":"Honest Guarantees for Generative Art","one_sentence_summary":"An executable-art platform would state exactly which works and interactions it can verify, preserve unknown results outside that boundary, and leave artistic acceptance to curators.","problem_plain":"A platform wants a preflight tool to decide whether every submitted generative artwork will always terminate or reset and will never violate formal display limits under any future interaction or sensor stream. Yet the artwork language, external capabilities, input bounds, and guarantee are not precisely defined. A timeout or unsuccessful search may then be treated as approval or rejection even though it proves neither. The central issue is whether the unrestricted request crosses a computability boundary while narrower program fragments remain analyzable.","proposal_plain":"Before extending the verifier, the platform would define the artwork language, state behavior, permitted plug-ins and network access, input encoding, display constraints, and meaning of termination or reset. It would seek both a total procedure for restricted fragments and an independently checked impossibility argument for the unrestricted class. Works inside an enforceable finite fragment could receive exact or sound finite-state analysis. Explicitly bounded interactions could be checked exhaustively only within those bounds. Other works would receive sound but incomplete analysis that can report a possible violation or UNKNOWN, followed by curator review and runtime containment. Every report would identify its language version, assumptions, bounds, property, and guarantee type. The verifier would assess mechanically testable constraints, not beauty, meaning, or artistic merit.","transfer_plain":"Computability-boundary mapping separates an open-ended decision demand from regions where exact procedures are possible. In this setting, executable artworks and future audience inputs form the open class; restricted grammars, finite interaction envelopes, sound abstractions, explicit unknowns, and versioned records mark the narrower regions where honest guarantees can be made.","why_it_advanced":"It passed Experiment 4’s strict researched-candidate bar because the boundary problem is clearly specified, close comparators exist, safeguards preserve curator and artist authority, and a falsifiable archived-work study is defined. STRICT_SUCCESS does not mean real-world validation, novelty, deployment authorization, or demonstrated economic impact.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Museums already use source review, risk assessment, emulation, sandboxes, watchdog resets, artist consultation, and cross-functional conservation. Formal model checking and abstract interpretation also exist for restricted programs. The remaining claim is the museum-specific combination: adding an enforceable language-and-property contract plus guarantee-labeled routing will reduce unsupported claims based on timeouts or sampled success, preserve UNKNOWN as non-dispositive, and retain curator-rated fidelity for works admitted to the restricted fragment. No supplied source establishes that joint result.","test_and_decision":"With an authorized museum or platform, freeze one interpreter and examine 12 archived works read-only. Define three machine-testable display constraints, a finite event alphabet, and trace depth 20. Compare the proposed restricted-fragment and routing workflow with sandbox/watchdog review, property-based testing, and manual source review. An independent formal-methods reviewer would check semantics, soundness, coverage, and any impossibility proof. Measure coverage, time, concrete violations, false alarms, unknowns, label retention, scope overstatement, and curator-rated fidelity. Stop or redesign for any false clearance, incomplete declared enumeration, coercion of UNKNOWN, or failure to preserve essential behavior in at least eight works.","deployment_and_cost":"No adopter, corpus, source rights, or interpreter specification is secured. Rough 2026 resource-equivalent bands are $50,000–$250,000 for first evidence, $250,000–$1 million for initial setup and operational launch, and $50,000–$250,000 annually. They exclude institution-specific rights clearance, legacy recovery, procurement, and major exhibition hardware.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Formal palette, luminance, or exclusion-zone rules could be mistaken for the curator’s richer aesthetic judgment.","A restricted language could exclude recursion, emergence, duration, or responsiveness essential to the artwork.","A coarse abstraction could overwhelm reviewers with possible violations, while an unsound one could issue false clearance.","Finite analysis may still be impractical because the modeled state space grows too large.","Staff could operationally turn UNKNOWN into rejection despite the stated policy. Archived works may poorly represent future submissions or dependencies."],"expert_types":["Formal-methods and computability researcher","Software-art conservator","Curator of digital or time-based media","Generative artist or artist-rights representative","Museum technology and data-governance counsel"],"expert_questions":["Does the frozen artwork language actually contain the computational features assumed by the boundary argument?","Can each formal display property be checked without misrepresenting the curator’s intended constraint?","Which behaviors must the restricted fragment preserve for the selected works to remain faithful?","Are the abstraction and bounded enumeration sound and complete for exactly the scopes printed on their reports?","Will downstream staff preserve UNKNOWN and POSSIBLE_VIOLATION labels instead of translating them into acceptance decisions?"],"ranking_note":"The post-hoc harmonized ordering placed this candidate in band C, spanning ranks 36–46 across profiles. It is a reading-order aid using cost as an affordability proxy, not an experimental endpoint, economic-value measure, or qualification of its STRICT_SUCCESS status.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-31","plain_language_title":"Turning Archival Loss into Stewardship","one_sentence_summary":"A community-controlled assembly would acknowledge authorized archival losses, invite bounded offers of help, and convert accepted offers into funded preservation work without demanding access, disclosure, or public grief.","problem_plain":"When a community-held religious recording, manuscript, oral history, or access relationship is destroyed, dispersed, withdrawn, or made inaccessible, a consortium may record only a status change or announcement. Later scholars and staff may not know what was lost, what must remain undisclosed, or who may describe it. Related materials can remain exposed, communities can face repeated requests, and proposed responses can lack owners, permissions, resources, or deadlines. The frequency and practical effects of this pattern have not been measured.","proposal_plain":"Only an authorized custodian could place a verified loss before the consortium and decide what may be public, controlled, or unspoken. After an independent review of standing, privacy, cultural protocol, accessibility, emotional pressure, and exit options, an ordinary empty archival sleeve would mark the acknowledged absence without imitating lost or sacred material. A custodian-approved account would state the type of loss and the claims outsiders may not make. Participants could observe a bounded silence, leave, or use another accessible mode. Institutions could then offer specific capacity—staff time, storage assessment, migration, translation, catalog correction, training, or funds—or pass without explanation. Offers would not be accepted during the marked interval. Custodians could later accept, change, or decline them, after which accepted offers would become permission-bound, funded work orders with owners and review dates.","transfer_plain":"The ritual archetype is instantiated as a recurring, marked occasion that joins shared memory to renewed commitments. Here, an empty sleeve marks absence, witnesses preserve authorized limits, and a circulating marker prompts offers of capacity. The mapping is meaningful, but the ritual cannot preserve materials, settle custodianship, or transfer access rights by itself.","why_it_advanced":"It cleared the empirical-partner lane because documentary losses and community-governed access are consequential, the design separates acknowledgment from consent, and a fictional tabletop comparison is feasible. It did not meet strict success: no consortium or community has requested it, and there is no field evidence that the assembly improves stewardship beyond ordinary governance.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Loss registries, cultural-access protocols, grants, preservation consortia, emergency workflows, working groups, and memorial events already cover the component functions. Community-specific authority cannot be replaced by consortium permission. The open claim concerns only the added assembly: compared with the same layered registry, budget, meeting, and work-order process, does it improve accurate recall, completed custodian-approved work, and avoidance of repeat requests without increasing disclosure, pressure, unequal attention, emotional burden, or administrative cost?","test_and_decision":"Preregister a six-to-eight-week crossover tabletop with 18–30 practitioners, preservation staff, and compensated community-archive advisers, using one fictional low-sensitivity loss. Compare the marked assembly with a permission-layered registry and ordinary preservation meeting; hold facts, restrictions, and capacity budget constant and randomize condition order. Measure immediate and 30-day recall, disclosure and overclaim errors, standing judgments, conversion of offers into funded work orders, task clarity, repeat requests, pressure, accessibility, burden, hours, and cost. Advance only if the assembly improves at least two prespecified stewardship outcomes with no authority or disclosure error and no worse pressure or burden.","deployment_and_cost":"The first authorized step uses no real community or collection. Rough 2026 resource-equivalent bands are $10,000–$50,000 for first evidence, $50,000–$250,000 for initial setup, and $250,000–$1 million for both operational launch and annual operation. No staffing model, vendor quote, case volume, or host budget verifies these bands.","risks_and_uncertainties":["The consortium could appropriate or aestheticize a community’s loss.","Public acknowledgment could reveal a restricted collection’s existence, location, vulnerability, or former contents.","Custodians could feel pressured to narrate grief or grant access in exchange for assistance.","Capacity offers could become donor branding or promises without assigned budgets.","Visible, dramatic losses could attract resources away from slow deterioration or less prominent communities. The layered memory record could create later surveillance or security risks even when current access controls are followed."],"expert_types":["Community archive custodian or authorized knowledge holder","Religious-collections archivist","Cultural-protocol and Indigenous data-governance specialist","Preservation-program manager","Privacy, copyright, and records-retention counsel"],"expert_questions":["Who has standing to authorize the loss account when custodians or community members disagree?","What information may be public, controlled, temporarily retained, or omitted entirely?","Can declining participation, disclosure, or assistance remain genuinely costless under donor and institutional power differences?","Does the assembly improve completed preservation work beyond an equally funded registry-and-working-group process?","How should resources be allocated so publicly legible losses do not displace less visible but higher-risk preservation needs?"],"ranking_note":"The post-hoc harmonized ordering placed it in band C, with ranks 39–42 across profiles. This is only a reading-order aid using a cost-band affordability proxy; it does not measure economic value, establish elapsed pilot time, or alter the empirical-partner endpoint.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-STRICT-06","plain_language_title":"Reviewing Ritual Records by Their Differences","one_sentence_summary":"Researchers would use a collection-specific prediction model to foreground differences in recurring ritual records while preserving complete sources, independent full-record audits, and automatic fallback whenever the model becomes unreliable.","problem_plain":"Researchers comparing repeated service transcripts, ceremony descriptions, or ritual-manual editions may spend much of their first review pass rereading recurring structures while locally important changes compete for attention. Full-record reading preserves context but may be slow; simple exception lists can impose one supposedly normal form and hide changes that baseline cannot represent. The actual attention bottleneck has not yet been observed in a selected corpus, and predictability must be assessed separately for each collection rather than across religious traditions.","proposal_plain":"A read-only layer would predict the next descriptive event code—such as a role, action, object, or sequence position—before a held-out record is opened. The model would be versioned, collection-specific, and limited to declared metadata; it could not judge doctrine, authenticity, orthodoxy, or religious value. The interface would show structured insertions, deletions, substitutions, reorderings, and coding disagreements, weighted by uncertainty, source quality, underrepresentation, sensitivity, and interpretive importance. It could collapse only high-confidence expected units during first-pass review. Every packet would reconstruct the complete coded sequence and link to the untouched source. Sensitive, low-confidence, untranslated, permission-ambiguous, harm-related, or poorly represented records would appear in full. Independent random and risk-based full-record audits would detect missed context, while version mismatches, drift, or error-budget breaches would restore full-record review.","transfer_plain":"Predictive residual processing sends an expected signal plus the differences needed to reconstruct the observation, concentrating attention on prediction errors. Here, the expected signal is a collection-specific ritual-event sequence and the residual is a structured record difference. Checksums, raw-source audits, and fallback preserve reconstruction and expose model failure.","why_it_advanced":"It passed Experiment 6’s strict researched-candidate bar because the transfer is structurally clear, existing corpora and collation tools make a retrospective study plausible, and the comparator, safeguards, and stopping rules are explicit. STRICT_SUCCESS remains a research endpoint only, not field validation, novelty, deployment approval, or evidence of economic value.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"TEI apparatuses, CollateX, religious-studies toolkits, synoptic editions, recurrence analysis, anomaly ranking, and manual sampling already expose textual variation and support structured comparison. The remaining claim is their untested combination with pre-observation prediction, reconstructive residuals, consequence-aware routing, independent raw audits, and automatic fallback. For one authorized corpus, that system must save total review time while remaining noninferior to full-record and nonpredictive collation for material-variant recall, reconstruction, context coverage, and protected handling.","test_and_decision":"With a corpus owner and required community steward, preregister a read-only study of 60 authorized, fully coded records. Train and freeze a transparent model on the earliest 30, then counterbalance reviewers across full-record review, nonpredictive collation, and the predictive-residual interface on 30 held-out records. A blinded panel would define material variants and audit every mandatory-bypass record plus random and risk-based collapsed records. Stop if the residual condition misses a bypass item, falls more than five points behind full review on recall or reconstruction, creates a greater than five-point miss disparity for underrepresented contexts, saves less than 20% total person-time, or fails to outperform nonpredictive collation.","deployment_and_cost":"No corpus access, permission determination, adopter commitment, or validated event-code scheme is secured. Rough 2026 resource-equivalent bands are $10,000–$50,000 for first evidence, $50,000–$250,000 for initial setup, $250,000–$1 million for operational launch, and $50,000–$250,000 annually. Measured engineering, coding, governance, and audit costs remain unavailable.","risks_and_uncertainties":["A collection-specific expectation could acquire false authority as the normal or canonical ritual form.","Routine wording, silence, performance, or material context omitted by event codes could carry the important meaning.","Residual queues could reward novelty and make continuity seem unimportant.","Underrepresented traditions or periods could be suppressed if consequence safeguards fail.","Residuals could make sensitive outliers easier to identify. Model expectations could contaminate later coding, while gradual historical change could be absorbed as normal and disappear from attention."],"expert_types":["Digital humanities or textual-collation specialist","Religious-studies corpus researcher","Community data steward","Machine-learning evaluation specialist","Research-ethics and sensitive-data reviewer"],"expert_questions":["Is full-record rereading actually the binding attention cost in the proposed corpus?","Which descriptive code units preserve performance, silence, translation ambiguity, material practice, and consequential routine wording?","What material-variant gold standard can a blinded panel apply consistently?","Do audit and fallback costs leave at least the prespecified 20% net person-time saving?","Are miss rates, source expansions, and reconstruction errors acceptably balanced across periods, collections, and underrepresented contexts?"],"ranking_note":"The post-hoc harmonized ordering placed it in band C, spanning ranks 33–48 across profiles. That wide range is a reading-order aid using cost as an affordability proxy, not an experimental endpoint, an economic-value estimate, or a change to STRICT_SUCCESS.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}]}