{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_external48_20260801","source_assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__physics","selection_stratum":"HIGH_UPSIDE_RESEARCH_OPTION","search_queries":["synchrotron facility cancellation beamtime reserve list proposal scheduling cancellations users official","neutron facility beamtime cancellation short notice experiments official policy","shared research facility unused instrument time cancellations study beamtime utilization","synchrotron rapid access beamtime pre-approved proposals scheduling official","site:diamond.ac.uk beamtime cancellation short notice waiting list policy","site:esrf.fr beamtime cancellation notify replacement schedule users","beamtime cancellation rate synchrotron facility utilization study","synchrotron users must cancel beamtime notify facility policy cancellation beamtime user","\"beamtime\" \"cancellation\" \"waiting list\" synchrotron","site:diamond.ac.uk \"cancelled beamtime\" guidelines PDF"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Proposal Submittal and Scheduling Procedures for Macromolecular Crystallography","publisher":"Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory","url":"https://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/ssrl/web/node/28","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Oversubscription can leave beam-time requests unmet.","Unmet requests are waitlisted for time that becomes available in the same scheduling period.","Additional time can become available after other groups cancel.","Short-term schedule adjustments depend on groups accepting last-minute or odd-hour beam time.","Proposals undergo scientific-merit and environmental, safety, and health review."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"RAPIDD","publisher":"Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory","url":"https://als.lbl.gov/rapidd/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated; current content references 2026 operations","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Peer-reviewed rapid-access proposals are placed on beamline waiting lists.","Beamline staff schedule waiting-list proposals by review score and submission date, potentially at short notice.","The review examines experimental plans, sample readiness, beamline suitability, and safety information.","Rapid access is restricted to listed techniques and short allocations, and is unsuitable for complex setup or equipment reorganization.","Some beamlines reserve 5% to 15% of time for rapid access."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Cancellation Policy","publisher":"Life Sciences Collaborative Access Team","url":"https://ls-cat.org/cancel.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated; page copyright 2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["With at least ten business days' notice, the beamline attempts to find another user for canceled time.","Late cancellations are treated as used time.","Beam time may be declared abandoned for missing safety documentation or serious lateness and may then be reallocated.","The policy explicitly discourages wasting allocated beam time."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Comprehensive APS Beam Time Access Policy, Revision 5","publisher":"Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory","url":"https://www.aps.anl.gov/files/APS-sync/centraldocs/policy_procedures/user/docs/APS_1700813.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2025-01-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Beam-time allocation considers scientific score, feasibility, staff comments, and other factors, with beamline staff approving proposed allocations.","Individual beamlines decide how much time to set aside for rapid access and choose among rapid-access requests.","Beamlines are responsible for scheduling and coordinating visits through APS or local scheduling systems.","Users must complete required training and have an institutional user agreement."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Guidelines for Users and Staff at NSLS-II","publisher":"National Synchrotron Light Source II, Brookhaven National Laboratory","url":"https://www.bnl.gov/nsls2/docs/pdf/user-staff-expectations.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2024-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Every experiment requires an approved Safety Approval Form, and staff may stop work when the form is inappropriate.","Users must provide sufficient staffing, while facility staffing does not support continuous beamline assistance.","Some nominal operating time is unavailable because of commissioning, alignment, adjustment, or instrument reconfiguration.","Nonroutine experiments and special sample environments require early feasibility coordination."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"B21 Frequently Asked Questions","publisher":"Diamond Light Source","url":"https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Instruments/Soft-Condensed-Matter/small-angle/B21/FAQs.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["B21 can hold prepared samples and run them when another visit is canceled or finishes early.","This cancellation option does not guarantee earlier execution.","The practice is supported by mail-in sample handling and standardized measurement visits."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"User Portal FAQ: Scheduling Application","publisher":"European Synchrotron Radiation Facility","url":"https://www.esrf.fr/home/UsersAndScience/UserGuide/user-portal-faq.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Authorized schedulers can modify or cancel sessions after a schedule is finalized.","Schedule modifications can automatically notify the user office and local contacts.","The system distinguishes canceled experiments and unavailable shifts, supporting retrospective operational audits."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Block Allocation Group Proposal Guidance","publisher":"SOLEIL Synchrotron","url":"https://www.synchrotron-soleil.fr/en/users/current-call-proposals/proposals-types-and-submission-guide/block-allocation-group-bag","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Allocated beam time should be canceled at least two weeks before the experiment.","BAG coordinators manage communication with the user office, beamline manager, travel office, and safety staff.","Experiment leaders must ensure technical competence, safe operation, and smooth changeovers."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"SSRL directly documents the coexistence of oversubscribed beamlines, unmet waitlisted requests, and time released by cancellations; Diamond B21 explicitly keeps samples ready for cancellations or early finishes. LS-CAT's release, abandonment, and reallocation rules further show that user-side nonreadiness and late cancellation are recognized operational risks. These sources support the problem class, but none quantifies how much technically usable time still expires after existing substitution practices, so the candidate's residual rule-caused loss remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Formal waiting lists, oversubscription, rapid-access programs, and Diamond's opt-in cancellation route demonstrate revealed user demand for earlier or additional access and facility willingness to accommodate it. They do not establish stakeholder demand for the candidate's added distributional monitoring, published priorities, or rollback package at a particular facility.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"SSRL macromolecular-crystallography cancellation and waiting-list process","similarity":"Canceled shifts can become additional beam time; oversubscribed, unmet requests are waitlisted for openings in the same scheduling period; scientific merit and safety review remain in force; last-minute acceptance is anticipated.","remaining_difference":"The public guidance does not document a mandatory release deadline, an automated compatibility/readiness pool, protected-access incidence monitoring, predefined harm thresholds, or a controlled comparison against ordinary staff scheduling.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"ALS RAPIDD rapid-access waiting lists","similarity":"Experiments are peer reviewed, screened for readiness and safety, placed on beamline-specific waiting lists, prioritized by score and submission date, and scheduled at short notice within technique and shift limits.","remaining_difference":"RAPIDD primarily uses reserved rapid-access capacity rather than documenting reassignment only after cancellations; the public policy does not describe protected-group incidence safeguards or pilot rollback thresholds.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"Diamond B21 cancellation option","similarity":"Prepared samples are held so they can be run when another visit is canceled or ends early, closely matching a pre-ready pool filling otherwise expiring instrument time.","remaining_difference":"The documented practice is a specialized mail-in workflow and does not publish priority rules, release incentives, fairness monitoring, or a comparative evaluation protocol.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"LS-CAT release and reallocation policy","similarity":"The policy creates a ten-business-day cancellation incentive, attempts to substitute another user, and authorizes reallocation of abandoned beam time.","remaining_difference":"It does not publicly describe a standing peer-reviewed compatibility pool, transparent substitute priorities, protected-access monitoring, or evaluation and rollback rules.","source_ids":["S3"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"The core idea—releasing canceled beam time to reviewed, ready, waitlisted users—is established practice. The remaining testable increment is a single-instrument governance package that combines a mandatory release rule, configuration-specific preclearance, published substitute priorities, explicit protection of access shares, and prospective workload, safety, gaming, and distributional stopping rules, tested against the facility's existing cancellation-recovery process.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Multiple facilities already operate the needed components: decline or cancellation workflows, peer-reviewed waiting lists, short-notice scheduling, held ready samples, and electronic schedule modification and notification. Implementation is nevertheless bounded by experiment compatibility, setup and reconfiguration time, safety approval, user and staff availability, and the unsuitability of complex experiments for rapid access.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Recovering perishable beam time can add useful experiments where cancellations overlap with ready demand, but the searched sources provide no residual-loss rate after current reallocation. Since close analogues already recover some cancellations, large incremental impact is not established.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Oversubscription, waitlists, rapid-access programs, and an opt-in cancellation route show demand for flexible access. No source shows a facility seeking the candidate's additional protected-access and monitoring layer.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Release deadlines, merit-prioritized waiting lists, readiness review, short-notice scheduling, and cancellation substitution already exist across close analogues. The remaining advantage is mainly the integrated fairness, audit, and rollback design and must outperform current staff matching in shadow evaluation.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The central reallocation mechanism substantially overlaps established official practices. A narrower claim may remain for the combined protected-access incidence and predefined stopping-rule package, but this bounded policy search cannot establish its novelty.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing portals, waitlists, cancellation workflows, mail-in samples, and schedule-notification systems show that a one-line implementation is feasible. Complex setup, configuration compatibility, staffing, safety approval, and reconfiguration losses prevent a top score.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Official policies place allocation and scheduling decisions with facility management, allocation bodies, beamline staff, or authorized schedulers. Local award terms and protected-access commitments still require confirmation.","source_ids":["S4","S7","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"Scheduling systems distinguish cancellations and unavailable shifts, while existing workflows identify waiting-list status, review priority, safety readiness, and experiment completion. Technical-usability and counterfactual matching classifications would still require manual operational review.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Restricting reassignment to reviewed, compatible, safety-approved experiments and retaining staff stop authority provides a strong safety structure. Rapid mobilization still creates workload and preparedness risks, so independent safety vetoes and stopping thresholds remain necessary.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Cancellation recovery, waitlists, and rapid access appear at several independent facilities, supporting transferability. Technique-specific setup, sample handling, staffing, access modes, and safety requirements mean the model must be validated instrument by instrument.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S5","S6","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One proposal-cycle, one-instrument observational audit: scheduling and cancellation data extraction; classification of technically usable versus maintenance, alignment, setup, staffing, or safety-blocked time; reconstruction of current substitutions; matched ready-demand log; protected-access incidence analysis; staff interviews; and an independent decision report. No live reassignment or new equipment is included.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Electronic schedule and cancellation records can be exported without building a new data platform.","Approximately 0.1 to 0.3 analyst FTE plus limited beamline, user-office, safety, and governance staff time is sufficient.","Readiness and compatibility judgments can be reconstructed from existing proposal and safety records.","The range is a resource-equivalent estimate; no facility-specific price source was found."],"source_ids":["S1","S5","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"If the audit passes, design a one-instrument shadow or pilot-ready process: legal and governance review; release, eligibility, priority, and protected-access rules; safety and compliance mapping; portal and notification configuration; data controls; staff training; user communication; evaluation design; and rollback procedures. Equipment work is limited to validating configuration compatibility, with no major acquisition.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing proposal, safety, and scheduling systems can be configured rather than replaced.","No new regulatory license, major contract amendment, or bespoke instrument is required.","Several months of fractional scientific, administrative, software, safety, legal, and evaluation labor are included.","Published examples demonstrate workflow feasibility but not local integration cost."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One-cycle controlled pilot on one compatible instrument, only after separate authorization: readiness-pool administration, vacancy matching, communications, safety revalidation, staff and changeover coverage, software support, protected-access monitoring, incident handling, and independent comparison with the preregistered baseline. No major equipment purchase is assumed.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only already-vacated slots and previously merit-reviewed experiments are eligible.","The pilot excludes complex setups and operates mainly during supportable hours.","Incremental staffing remains fractional or at most a small dedicated allocation.","Travel or sample-shipping support is limited and included as coordination contingency."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S6","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Steady-state operation on one instrument: fractional scheduling coordinator and scientific support, periodic safety and readiness review, software hosting and maintenance, notification and data administration, changeover contingency, user support, protected-access incidence reporting, annual independent evaluation, and governance review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Scope remains one instrument line with a modest cancellation volume.","Existing safety, proposal-review, and scheduling infrastructure remains available.","Complex experiments and routine after-hours support remain excluded unless separately resourced.","No major equipment replacement or facility-wide software procurement is included."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official facility guidance directly confirms oversubscribed beamlines with waitlisted unmet requests, cancellations that release time, and operational efforts to substitute other users. The magnitude of residual unrecovered time at any selected instrument remains uncertain.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"APS policy assigns allocation and scheduling roles to allocation bodies, beamline staff, management, and scheduling systems; ESRF and SOLEIL guidance likewise identifies authorized schedulers, beamline managers, user offices, and safety staff.","source_ids":["S4","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Although cancellation reallocation is established, the remaining claim is testable: compared with existing staff matching, an integrated release, preclearance, published-priority, protected-access, and stopping-rule process should recover more technically usable canceled hours without exceeding safety, workload, disruption, gaming, or distributional thresholds.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A one-cycle shadow audit can compare current recovery with counterfactual policy matches without changing any allocation or allowing an experiment to run.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The observational next step changes no live schedule. For any later pilot, official sources support retaining mandatory safety approval, staff stop authority, technical-feasibility review, and authorized scheduling control; local award and protected-access terms must still be checked before authorization.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The ranges cover the identifiable work shown by existing facility workflows—data extraction, scheduling, scientific compatibility review, safety compliance, software configuration, coordination, staff coverage, and evaluation—while explicitly remaining low confidence where direct cost data are absent.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Before any live reassignment, preregister and run a shadow-mode study for one complete proposal cycle on one configuration-stable instrument. For every cancellation, early finish, or failed-readiness interval, have operations staff classify usable duration after setup, alignment, maintenance, staffing, and safety constraints; record what the current process actually recovers; and independently identify which already merit-reviewed and safety-cleared waiting experiments the proposed rule would have matched. Compare additional completed-equivalent instrument-hours, staff-hours per recovered shift, changeover failures, and protected or resource-constrained group incidence. Falsify the incremental claim if the shadow rule does not improve recovery of technically usable canceled time by at least 10% relative to current practice, requires more than two incremental staff-hours per recovered eight-hour shift, or would reduce any protected allocation share; do not proceed if current practice already recovers at least 90% of technically usable canceled time.","blocking_evidence":["Facility-specific counts and causes of canceled, abandoned, early-finished, and failed-readiness shifts, including the technically usable remainder.","The proportion of technically usable canceled time already recovered through current waitlists, informal staff matching, mail-in samples, rapid access, or schedule adjustment.","A configuration-matched count of contemporaneous experiments that were merit-reviewed, safety-cleared, staffed, and genuinely ready at short notice.","Local evidence on changeover duration, off-hours support, sample logistics, and the minimum interval capable of producing scientifically useful results.","Protected-access baselines and evidence that short-notice eligibility will not systematically favor nearby, automated, mail-in, or well-resourced teams.","Confirmation that local proposal, funder, partner-user, proprietary-access, and protected-share terms permit reassignment of vacated awards.","A facility-specific costing of scheduler, beamline-scientist, safety, software, legal, data, user-support, and evaluation effort."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded search covered publicly accessible policies and operating guidance from several synchrotron facilities; it was not an exhaustive search of patents, internal procedures, neutron facilities, other shared-instrument classes, or unpublished pilots. It establishes that the core cancellation-to-reviewed-waitlist mechanism is already practiced and therefore should not be presented as novel. It does not establish whether the narrower integrated package of protected-access incidence monitoring, published substitute priorities, and preregistered stopping rules has or has not been implemented somewhere else."}