{"dossiers":[{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-29","plain_language_title":"Recurring Stewardship for Digital Legacies","one_sentence_summary":"A governed observance would periodically turn remembrance into authorized, verifiable decisions about access, visibility, retention, resurfacing, correction, and successor responsibility for a digital legacy.","problem_plain":"After death or lasting incapacity, a person’s posts, messages, images, inferred attributes, and scheduled reminders may persist under fragmented platform settings. Their recorded wishes may be incomplete, appointed account stewards may leave, and relatives or correspondents may disagree about what should remain visible. A one-time memorialization decision cannot necessarily address later platform changes, automated resurfacing, new audiences, disputed material, or the transfer of practical responsibility to a new steward.","proposal_plain":"At memorial creation, a chosen recurring date, a steward handoff, or a material platform change, authorized participants would hold a Digital Memory Stewardship Observance. A prior review would determine who may participate, submit private input, withhold material involving them, or decline. During the session, recommendations, autoplay, metrics, and nonessential notifications would be paused where technically possible. Participants would review consented, provenance-labeled materials without requiring shared grief or one approved life story. Authorized stewards would then renew, revise, decline, or transfer duties covering access, visibility, retention, resurfacing, moderation, and correction. Closure would create authenticated platform requests, named owners, deadlines, access changes, and an unresolved-matters register, followed by debrief, audit, repair, and retirement options.","transfer_plain":"The ritualized meaning-and-commitment archetype is transferred through a marked pause in ordinary algorithmic circulation, a recognizable sequence, consented witnessing, and recurring renewal of duties. The mapping is structurally strong at the governance level, but the symbolic elements have not been shown to improve stewardship beyond a well-run checklist using identical platform controls.","why_it_advanced":"This EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE cleared a separately calibrated lane for a bounded external-partner study, not the strict-success lane. It advanced because the lifecycle problem, platform authorities, adjacent practices, safety controls, and falsifiable comparison are identifiable. Crucially, there is no field evidence that bereaved people would find the observance acceptable, safe, accessible, or useful.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Adjacent prior art includes platform memorialization, legacy contacts, inactivity plans, estate administration, grief gatherings, and collaboratively edited memorials. These already cover many individual components. The narrower open claim is that adding a recurring, consent-aware observance—with an algorithmic pause, plural witnessing, explicit duty renewal, and later audit—to the same controls will produce more correctly authorized and verified actions and reveal more unresolved conflicts than an equal-time static directive-and-action checklist, without causing more privacy breaches, coercion, or distress.","test_and_decision":"A digital-legacy professional body or university HCI laboratory would recruit 12–24 living-volunteer dyads using synthetic or participant-controlled redacted account replicas. Dyads would receive either the complete observance or an equal-time checklist with identical mock controls and authority briefing. Independent reviewers would assess correct authority assignment, verified action completion, detected conflicts, unauthorized access or disclosure, handoff success, distress, coercion, unwanted exposure, accessibility failures, and facilitator halts. Proceed only if the observance materially improves verified correct actions or conflict detection without worse safety or completion outcomes; otherwise adapt, hold, or retire it. This would not demonstrate benefit during bereavement.","deployment_and_cost":"A sandboxed rehearsal and manual action ledger appear feasible; production use depends on platform-specific authentication, recommendation controls, verification, rollback, law, and trained facilitation. Rough 2026 USD resource-equivalent bands are $50,000–$250,000 for first evidence, $250,000–$1 million for initial startup, $1–$5 million for operational launch, and $250,000–$1 million annually. These are not vendor quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["A powerful family or community faction could turn the memorial into one authorized-looking account of the person’s life.","Private messages, images, or relationship patterns could be exposed to people who lack standing to see them.","Survivors could mistake ceremonial agreement for authority over recorded directives or another living person’s data.","Visible settings may not match the platform’s actual recommendation and resurfacing behavior.","Recurring dates or notifications could impose remembrance on people who want to disengage permanently or temporarily without explanation."] ,"expert_types":["Digital-legacy and estate-planning specialist","Human-computer interaction researcher specializing in death and bereavement","Privacy and fiduciary-access lawyer","Platform trust, safety, and account-support engineer","Grief-informed facilitator or clinical safety reviewer"],"expert_questions":["Which proposed decisions belong respectively to the original account holder, a fiduciary, a depicted or corresponding person, and the platform?","Can the mock platform reliably verify resurfacing behavior and reverse every tested setting or access change?","Which symbolic elements add information or accountability that the equal-time checklist does not?","What stopping thresholds for distress, coercion, unwanted exposure, and disputed authority should block continuation?","Can the study recruit contested or culturally varied dyads without treating participation as consent to memorialization?"] ,"ranking_note":"The harmonized review is only a post-hoc reading order, not an experimental endpoint or measure of economic value. It placed this candidate between ranks 41 and 57 in band D; the cost input approximated affordability, not elapsed pilot time.","source_ids_used":["s1","s2","s3","s4","s5","s6","s7","s8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-02","plain_language_title":"Testing Audit Findings Before Awarding Leads","one_sentence_summary":"A separate internal-audit challenge would award temporary lead roles and investigative hours according to independently reproduced risk findings rather than visible finding volume or severity alone.","problem_plain":"Internal-audit teams may compete for a small number of prominent engagement-lead roles and discretionary investigative hours. If managers informally reward finding counts, apparent severity, speed, or budget performance, auditors could gain an advantage by splitting one root problem into several findings, favoring easily scored issues, delaying referrals, withholding reusable tests, or pressing auditees toward harsher labels. The result could be a leadership pipeline that rewards persuasive issue production rather than reproducible assurance work.","proposal_plain":"Create a quarterly Replicable Assurance Challenge that remains separate from mandatory reporting and personnel evaluation. Teams would submit evidence from completed work to compete for two temporary lead mandates and capped investigative hours. A frozen rulebook would protect urgent, legal, fraud, whistleblower, and material-misstatement reporting while prohibiting duplicate counting, evidence withholding, retaliation, reciprocal scoring, unsupported severity changes, auditee pressure, and hidden labor. An identity-blinded panel would test leading hypotheses on held-out transactions and score reproducibility, severity support, root-cause coherence, added risk coverage, audit-trail quality, portability, and auditee burden. Awards would expire after one quarter; some hours would remain centrally held for correction. Appeals, coordination screens, later validation, and retirement rules would constrain gaming and entrenchment.","transfer_plain":"Bounded rivalry is instantiated as a deliberately separate contest for scarce, temporary mandates. Legitimate competition occurs through reproducible evidence under frozen rules; mandatory assurance communication remains outside the arena. Independent re-performance, labor caps, anti-collusion screens, burden scoring, expiring prizes, and later review are intended to keep rivalry tied to assurance quality.","why_it_advanced":"This EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE entered the bounded data-partner lane, not strict success. It offers a testable shadow study using existing audit records and established quality-review authority. However, no inspected records show that lead roles are truly scarce, that issue production affects selection, or that the proposed strategic behavior occurs in operating audit functions.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Quality-assurance programs, ordinary engagement review, root-cause analysis, consolidated issue tracking, rotations, and risk-adjusted scorecards already address much of the problem. The open claim is conditional: only where genuine scarcity and strategic interdependence exist, blinded re-performance should predict later finding validity and incremental risk coverage better than ordinary quality review or a simpler scorecard, without delaying reporting, increasing defensive documentation, exposing confidential material, or adding auditee burden. This is not a world-novelty claim.","test_and_decision":"Preregister a retrospective shadow replay of six closed engagements, twelve issued or merged findings, and six documented but unissued hypotheses. Three independent quality reviewers would use preserved records and held-out transactions without contacting auditees, publishing ranks, or allocating mandates. Compare the proposed composite with existing QAIP outcomes and a simpler risk-adjusted scorecard. Measure inter-rater reliability, rank stability, reviewer hours, blinding, later finding status, added coverage, reconstructed burden, and strategic markers. Do not advance if reliability is below 0.70, the method adds no discrimination, engagement identity or writing style dominates, confidentiality or blinding fails, or prospective use could inhibit candid reporting.","deployment_and_cost":"Existing audit repositories could support a retrospective replay, but live use would require reliable blinding, risk normalization, protected workpaper access, independent reviewers, and safeguards against informal career use. Rough 2026 USD 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 $250,000–$1 million annually; they are not quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Competition could compromise, or appear to compromise, auditor independence.","A reproducibility metric could disadvantage emerging or systemic risks that cannot yet be repeated across transactions or locations.","Teams could optimize documentation for the review panel while moving preparation labor off the recorded budget.","Audit subjects and methods may reveal team identity despite formal blinding.","Private standings could still affect promotion or assignment decisions if confidentiality fails."] ,"expert_types":["Chief audit executive","Independent internal-audit quality-assurance reviewer","Audit-committee or board governance specialist","Employment, privilege, and workpaper-access counsel","Audit-methodology and measurement researcher"],"expert_questions":["Do historical assignment records show scarce lead opportunities and a relationship between visible issue production and selection?","Can reviewers reconstruct nonissued hypotheses and held-out tests from authorized records without new auditee requests?","Does the composite remain reliable after controlling for engagement risk, scope, specialization, and workpaper style?","Would auditors alter urgent reporting or create defensive documentation if a live challenge were introduced?","Can shadow results be technically and institutionally prevented from entering personnel decisions?"] ,"ranking_note":"The harmonized review is a post-hoc ordering aid, not an endpoint or economic-value estimate. This candidate fell between ranks 52 and 54 in band D. Its cost-based affordability proxy did not independently measure how quickly a pilot could run.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-PARTNER-08","plain_language_title":"Full-Cost Bidding for Preservation Access","one_sentence_summary":"Custodians would submit sealed subsidy bids for comparable preservation work, with lifecycle costs, cultural authority, material safety, and future technical dependence incorporated before scarce laboratory time is awarded.","problem_plain":"A library consortium may have fewer mobile-laboratory weeks and less subsidy than custodians request for fragile manuscripts, recordings, ritual objects, and community archives. In a narrative competition, applicants could understate preparation, rights, metadata, storage, migration, or remediation costs while exaggerating quantity or urgency. Projects that appear inexpensive may therefore win by shifting work and risk to custodians, communities, or future repositories, while vulnerable materials wait and selected providers gain technical leverage over later rounds.","proposal_plain":"Divide annual laboratory capacity into narrow lots defined by material type, condition, and verified work units. Before bidding, independent reviewers would confirm custodial authority, cultural permissions, conservation safeguards, metadata, access restrictions, storage commitments, and technical feasibility. Eligible custodians would submit sealed reverse bids stating the minimum subsidy required for preparation, treatment, digitization, return copies, metadata, and a defined preservation period. A fixed schedule would add reserves for handling, migration, dependencies, and remediation, without penalizing culturally required restrictions. The lowest adjusted eligible bids would clear, subject to institutional concentration and shared-failure checks. Finalists would be audited; sponsors would secure remediation obligations; outputs would use transferable formats under custodian-controlled access; and later cost, damage, access, and concentration results would recalibrate future lots.","transfer_plain":"Bounded rivalry becomes a reverse auction for scarce preservation capacity. Price competition is permitted only within pre-authorized, technically comparable lots and above noncontestable cultural and safety floors. Sealed bids, fixed adjustments, audits, guarantees, concentration limits, transferable workflows, rebidding windows, and post-project review seek to prevent cost dumping, coordination, and lock-in.","why_it_advanced":"This EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE cleared a bounded external data-study lane rather than strict success. Active preservation programs, technical standards, and an authorized retrospective design make the question researchable. The central missing evidence is institutional: no partner has supplied project records, approved even a simulation, or shown that stable comparable lots can be constructed.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Expert grant panels, first-come allocation, collection-size formulas, eligibility lotteries, centralized preservation, and established reverse-auction procedures supply adjacent prior art. The narrower open claim is that, for genuinely comparable and pre-authorized projects, externality-adjusted subsidy bids will predict realized lifecycle cost and allocate fixed laboratory capacity more cost-effectively than those alternatives without increasing cultural exclusion, physical harm, change orders, technical concentration, or stranded outputs. The claim fails if discretionary adjustments overwhelm price or protected collections cannot fit comparable lots.","test_and_decision":"With custodial and records-owner authorization, reconstruct proposed and realized lifecycle costs for at most ten completed projects in no more than three material-and-treatment categories. Two independent conservation-cost reviewers would apply preregistered fields, comparability thresholds, missing-data rules, and harm measures. Test whether adjusted ordering predicts realized cost better than requested budgets and actual narrative rankings, then simulate narrative, first-come, size-formula, and lottery allocations. Permit only a go/no-go decision for a nonbinding sealed-bid simulation. Stop if reviewer agreement is poor, over 25% of projects are incomparable, discretionary adjustments dominate, prediction does not materially improve, protected or under-resourced custodians are disproportionately excluded, or simulated safety or concentration worsens.","deployment_and_cost":"The administrative auction machinery is feasible only for narrow categories with stable units; cultural authority, rights, condition, insurance, storage, and legal characterization remain local. Rough 2026 USD 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 $250,000–$1 million annually. They are not vendor quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Standard work units could conceal collection-specific fragility, urgency, or treatment needs.","Institutions with already subsidized infrastructure could bid below smaller community archives without being more efficient overall.","Guarantee requirements could exclude under-resourced custodians even if pooled guarantees are nominally available.","An adjustment schedule could wrongly treat culturally required access restrictions as costs or inefficiencies.","Transferability requirements could conflict with community authority over restricted knowledge or materials."] ,"expert_types":["Conservator experienced with the selected material categories","Community archive or religious-collection custodian","Cultural authority and Indigenous data-governance specialist","Preservation economist or auction-design researcher","Copyright, privacy, cultural-property, and procurement counsel"],"expert_questions":["Which material-and-treatment categories can be normalized without obscuring condition, cultural protocol, or urgency?","Can proposed and realized preparation, metadata, storage, migration, and remediation costs be reconstructed consistently from closed-project records?","How should the design prevent infrastructure-rich institutions from appearing artificially inexpensive?","Which cultural or custodial restrictions must remain outside every price and externality calculation?","Would the process legally constitute grantmaking, procurement, or another allocation form in the partner’s jurisdiction?"] ,"ranking_note":"The harmonized assessment is only a post-hoc reading order, not an experimental endpoint or economic-value measure. It placed this candidate between ranks 47 and 55 in band D. The pilot input represented cost-band affordability rather than independently assessed elapsed time.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},{"portfolio_id":"EXP06-STRICT-07","plain_language_title":"Reviewing What Changed in Student Reasoning","one_sentence_summary":"A shadow review system would predict a student’s next rubric-level performance, foreground the differences from that prediction, and preserve full human access, auditing, and fallback for every consequential interpretation.","problem_plain":"Instructors reviewing repeated low-stakes religious-studies assignments must keep checking familiar skills while looking for new misconceptions, unsupported comparisons, and unexpectedly strong reasoning. Complete review preserves context but may consume feedback time confirming repeated mastery. Predictive filtering could focus attention, yet it could also lock students into earlier profiles, treat one tradition or writing style as normal, miss defensible alternative readings, or confuse personal belief with academic performance. The challenge is to save attention without weakening plural, contestable human judgment.","proposal_plain":"For one course and one recurring assignment family, a versioned model would use only a consenting student’s earlier work to predict rubric-level features in the next response before it is opened. It would predict taught academic skills—not wording, belief, doctrinal correctness, or grades. Human coding of the untouched submission would then identify signed differences such as improvement, omitted evidence, repeated conflation, changed qualification, unsupported transfer, a defensible alternative, or coding disagreement. A residual-first interface could collapse expected components, but the matching model and residuals must reconstruct the whole rubric profile, with the full submission one action away. Humans would validate every residual. Independent full marking, student challenges, version checks, error budgets, and mandatory bypasses for high-stakes, personal, accessibility-sensitive, culturally disputed, unfamiliar, or low-confidence work would trigger complete review when needed.","transfer_plain":"Predictive-residual processing is transferred directly: a versioned learner state predicts the next rubric profile, human coding supplies the observed profile, and signed residuals carry informative change to reviewers. Reconstruction, uncertainty thresholds, independent raw-response audits, version handshakes, and fallback preserve access to the full signal rather than making the residual queue authoritative.","why_it_advanced":"This STRICT_SUCCESS passed Experiment 6’s strict researched-candidate bar because it defines a bounded comparator, quantitative success and failure thresholds, human authority, safety bypasses, and a feasible shadow test. That endpoint is not real-world validation, a novelty finding, deployment authorization, evidence of improved learning, or proof that the workflow saves money in practice.","prior_art_and_open_claim":"Adjacent systems already include fixed rubrics, essay scoring, mastery dashboards, adaptive quizzes, answer grouping, work sampling, feedback templates, and knowledge tracing. The remaining claim concerns their narrower combination: predicting a learner-specific rubric profile before opening a held-out interpretive response, representing the response as reconstructable signed residuals, and auditing against full marking. Compared with complete manual review, it must reduce total review time by at least 20% while holding reconstruction disagreement to 5% or less and adding no missed defensible alternative or mandatory-bypass case.","test_and_decision":"An authorized course partner would supply 48 de-identified responses from 12 students completing four sequential low-stakes assignments. Assignments 1–2 would create transparent predictions; the rubric, model, thresholds, bypasses, and analysis would be frozen before opening assignments 3–4. Counterbalanced reviewers would compare complete-response and residual-first review, while separate blinded graders would double-mark all 24 held-out responses. Success requires at least 20% lower median total review time, no more than 5% reconstruction disagreement, no additional missed defensible alternative or bypass case, no evident language or interpretive-position error pattern, and lower all-in effort after coding, validation, audit, challenge, maintenance, and fallback. Any failure falsifies or narrows the claim.","deployment_and_cost":"A small transparent shadow prototype is feasible, but live use would require privacy, accessibility, assessment-policy, procurement, and data-governance approval plus domain-literate coding and auditing. Rough 2026 USD resource-equivalent bands are $10,000–$50,000 for first evidence, $250,000–$1 million for startup, $50,000–$250,000 for operational launch, and $50,000–$250,000 annually; these are not quotes.","risks_and_uncertainties":["Earlier predictions could anchor reviewers and cause genuine improvement to be discounted.","The rubric or learner model could systematically misread a less represented language, tradition, or argumentative style.","A defensible interpretation could appear erroneous merely because it was not predicted from earlier work.","Residual-focused feedback could omit the educational value of recognizing well-executed continuity.","Learner-state records could expose distinctive errors or beliefs and create additional education-record privacy risk."] ,"expert_types":["Religious-studies or theology instructor","Educational measurement and formative-assessment researcher","Learning-analytics or interpretable-model specialist","Accessibility and student-data governance officer","Tradition- and language-literate independent marker"],"expert_questions":["Are two prior responses sufficiently predictive within the frozen task family to justify any collapsed review?","Can independent graders reconstruct every rubric profile within the 5% disagreement limit?","Which interpretations, languages, accommodations, or task types must always bypass residual-first review?","Does total time still fall by 20% after coding, validation, expansion, auditing, challenges, maintenance, and fallback are included?","Can error patterns by language or interpretive position be examined ethically in a sample this small?"] ,"ranking_note":"The harmonized review is a post-hoc reading order, not the strict experimental endpoint or a measure of economic value. It placed the candidate between ranks 54 and 56 in band D; its affordability proxy did not independently score elapsed pilot time.","source_ids_used":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}]}