Within the sources searched and model samples generated, the central position is already stated in the sources examined, but its proposed mechanism is close to accounts already in circulation.
Originality Estimate
43/100
Weighted heuristic over search deviation, model rarity, structural novelty, consequential difference and specificity.
Qualified Originality
37/100
Estimate × coherence 0.889 × testability 0.955.
Confidence
low
Coverage was thin, or this run used fixtures. Treat the numbers as indicative only.
This analysis compared the submission against 58 retrieved sources and 60 base-model samples. The Originality Estimate of 43/100 is driven mainly by how readily ordinary search surfaces adjacent material. Qualified Originality (37/100) applies coherence and testability as dampeners: an unusual idea that cannot be tested is reported as unusual, not as promising. Confidence is low. This run used fixtures, so confidence is capped at low regardless of what the numbers suggest. None of this establishes that the idea has never appeared before. It describes where the idea sits relative to the evidence this run examined.
Each facet blends its public-search deviation with its model-baseline rarity.
The cheapest prompt tier at which the baseline reached each facet.
No sample in this baseline produced it. That is a statement about these samples, not about the model's knowledge.
Position originality
45
Higher = the central claim was harder to reach.
Mechanism originality
11
Higher = the proposed pathway was harder to reach.
Conceptual-combination originality
69
Higher = this pairing of concepts was harder to reach.
Prediction originality
58
Higher = the predictions were harder to reach.
Practical-consequence originality
46
Higher = the consequences drawn were harder to reach.
Search accessibility
95
Higher = ordinary web search finds this idea more easily.
Model accessibility
31
Higher = ordinary prompting reproduces this idea more easily.
Coherence
63
Higher = the argument follows from its premises.
Specificity
88
Higher = more concrete, quantified and less hedged.
Testability
85
Higher = easier to falsify with a feasible study.
Evidential grounding
61
Higher = better anchored in checkable evidence.
| Term | Value | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model-baseline rarity | 69 | 25% | 17.25 |
| Specificity | 88 | 10% | 8.80 |
| Public-search deviation | 5 | 30% | 1.50 |
| Mechanism & structural novelty | 40 | 20% | 8.00 |
| Consequential difference | 52 | 15% | 7.80 |
| Originality Estimate | 43 | ||
43 × 0.889 × 0.955 = 37
Each factor is 0.70 + 0.30 × (score / 100), so coherence and testability can dampen the estimate by at most 51% combined — never erase it.
| Facet | Search suppression | Search originality | Model rarity | Level | Blended |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central position | 0.95 | 5 | 95 | 5 | 45 |
| Proposed mechanism | 0.95 | 5 | 19 | 1 | 11 |
| Conceptual combination | 0.53 | 47 | 95 | 5 | 69 |
| Predictions | 0.26 | 74 | 39 | 2 | 58 |
| Practical consequences | 0.95 | 5 | 95 | 5 | 46 |
Blended = 0.55 × search originality + 0.45 × model rarity. Search suppression is a rank-decayed noisy-OR over the relation strength of every source that matched the facet, so one decisive match saturates while many weak ones accumulate slowly.
This fingerprint was edited by the submitter before the analysis ran.
conference-proceedings-track-b.fixtures.isthisoriginal.example · label confidence 0.82
The source advances the same position and the same proposed pathway, with a comparable practical recommendation. Its evidence is preliminary and single-site, which limits how much weight this match should carry.
conference-proceedings-track-b.fixtures.isthisoriginal.example · label confidence 0.81
The source advances the same position and the same proposed pathway, with a comparable practical recommendation. Its evidence is preliminary and single-site, which limits how much weight this match should carry.
conference-proceedings-track-b.fixtures.isthisoriginal.example · label confidence 0.71
The source advances the same position and the same proposed pathway, with a comparable practical recommendation. Its evidence is preliminary and single-site, which limits how much weight this match should carry.
conference-proceedings-track-b.fixtures.isthisoriginal.example · label confidence 0.59
The source advances the same position and the same proposed pathway, with a comparable practical recommendation. Its evidence is preliminary and single-site, which limits how much weight this match should carry.
journal-of-applied-systems-review.fixtures.isthisoriginal.example · label confidence 0.87
The source states the same central position in different vocabulary. It does not engage with the proposed mechanism, so the mechanism facet is untouched by this match.
The dominant explanation is a straightforward resource constraint: the observed effect scales with how much of the input is available, and most of the variation between cases is explained by that alone.
A baseline cluster covers part of this facet but omits its specific commitment (similarity 0.52).
The usual explanation is historical path dependence: early choices locked in a configuration that is now costly to change, and the present pattern is largely inherited rather than chosen.
A baseline cluster covers part of this facet but omits its specific commitment (similarity 0.47).
The unexpected consequence is that the most-funded interventions would be among the least effective, because they scale the wrong quantity.
A baseline cluster covers part of this facet but omits its specific commitment (similarity 0.61).
If that holds, the practical consequence is that interventions should be targeted at the configuration rather than the total, which inverts the usual prioritisation.
A baseline cluster covers part of this facet but omits its specific commitment (similarity 0.55).
If that holds, the practical consequence is that interventions should be targeted at the configuration rather than the total, which inverts the usual prioritisation.
A baseline cluster covers part of this facet but omits its specific commitment (similarity 0.45).
{
"mode": "demo",
"note": "Seeded example. Produced by running the real pipeline over fixture providers.",
"search": {
"provider": "fixture",
"isFixture": true,
"uniqueDomains": 11,
"queriesPlanned": 14,
"resultsExamined": 58,
"queriesSucceeded": 14
},
"baseline": {
"model": "fixture-baseline-v1",
"provider": "fixture",
"completed": 60,
"requested": 60
},
"narrative": {
"model": null,
"provider": "fixture"
},
"embeddings": {
"model": "deterministic-local-v1",
"isLearnedModel": false
},
"generatedAt": "2026-01-15T09:00:00.000Z",
"scoringVersion": "1.0.0",
"analysisStartedAt": "2026-01-15T09:00:00.000Z",
"analysisCompletedAt": "2026-01-15T09:04:00.000Z"
}