{"schema_version":1,"assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","source_experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__archaeology_paleontology","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"archaeology_paleontology","title":"Risk-Tiered Review for Destructive Collection Sampling","opportunity_summary":"Test whether a repository can reduce avoidable delay and abandonment of low-consumption archaeological or paleontological analyses by expediting requests classified as low risk, while retaining all existing legal, cultural, conservation, consent, provenance, and documentation requirements. The packet supplies a falsifiable process hypothesis and bounded evaluation design, but establishes neither material local prevalence nor superiority to simpler intake improvements.","adopter_authorizer":"A collection-holding museum or repository, authorized through its legally empowered collections body and constrained by governing law, donor or depositor terms, conservation authority, and required descendant-, Indigenous-, or source-community consent or consultation.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Completing more scientifically useful analyses without increasing consumption or rights violations could be meaningful, but the packet does not establish eligible request volume, avoidable delay, abandonment frequency, or effect size."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Applicants may value faster decisions and repositories may value less rework, but no expressed demand, institutional commitment, community acceptance, or evidence that delay is a priority is present."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Risk-tiered routing directly addresses a coarse-review mechanism and is testable against ordinary review, but its advantage over digitized forms, better guidance, or added staff disappears if incompleteness, communication, or substantive review is binding."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal has a specific configuration of risk tiers, retained substantive gates, monitoring, and rollback, but prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness cannot be supported closed-book."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The intervention is primarily a workflow, classification, and monitoring change using observable administrative outcomes; implementation is plausible, although reliable ex ante risk classification and cumulative-consumption tracking remain unvalidated."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The repository's legally authorized collections body is identifiable, but adoption may also require conservation, legal, donor, and community authority that the repository cannot unilaterally substitute for or waive."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies measurable process and protection outcomes, a baseline, a nearest rival, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, and a bounded retrospective first step; local data quality and sample volume are unknown."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The design retains existing substantive gates, excludes sensitive unauthorized sampling, caps consumption, specifies incident thresholds, and provides rollback to ordinary review, though gaming, cumulative loss, inequity, and trust harms still require monitoring."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The risk-tiering concept could be reused across repositories, but eligibility rules, legal obligations, community relationships, collection sensitivity, data systems, and request volume are institution-specific."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded retrospective audit of recent in-scope requests, including timeline reconstruction, coding of delay causes and outcomes, limited applicant and staff validation, and comparison of candidate low-risk cases with ordinary or higher-risk cases.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A single repository participates.","Records are accessible and sufficiently complete for process tracing.","The audit does not include live expedited approvals.","Community or legal review is limited to determining whether candidate criteria are appropriate for later co-design."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Co-design and validation of eligibility rules, legal and conservation review, affected-party consultation, cumulative-consumption controls, workflow configuration, staff training, data governance, and pre-committed halt thresholds.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment is limited to one repository and existing substantive approval standards.","No major collection-management platform replacement is required.","Sensitive materials and cases lacking required authority remain outside the expedited tier.","Historical cases are available for testing classification consistency."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"A small randomized or staggered pilot covering eligible requests, independent outcome monitoring, applicant and reviewer support, protection-incident review, equity assessment, and comparison with ordinary review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Eligible request volume is sufficient for a decision-relevant pilot.","No pilot case bypasses existing legal, cultural, consent, conservation, or provenance requirements.","Sampling equipment and scientific analysis remain applicant-funded rather than program costs.","The pilot runs within one repository for no more than approximately one annual cycle."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing triage, audit, cumulative-consumption tracking, documentation quality assurance, consultation for applicable cases, appeals or objections, staff training, system maintenance, and periodic evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One repository operates the tier with moderate request volume.","Existing staff and systems absorb part of the workflow.","The estimate excludes the laboratories' research-analysis costs.","Material compliance, consultation, or software expansion could move recurring costs upward."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate describes a concrete, observable repository-governance problem involving undifferentiated review, decision delay, missed research windows, and finite specimens, while correctly leaving its local magnitude unestablished."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Collection-holding repositories and their legally authorized collections bodies are explicitly identified, together with external legal, donor, conservation, consent, and consultation constraints."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that risk-tiered routing will outperform ordinary case-by-case review for eligible low-risk requests without worsening consumption, documentation, rights, objections, staff burden, or other protection outcomes."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A retrospective audit and process trace of recent decisions can compare delay causes and outcomes without authorizing any new destructive sampling."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first evidence step is non-deployment analysis, and any later pilot is explicitly conditioned on existing substantive authority, exclusions, caps, halt thresholds, and rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate defines the operational components but supplies no local request volume, staffing, record quality, consultation burden, system requirements, or validated classification process from which a dependable implementation range can be established."}},"blocking_evidence":["Local evidence that a material share of elapsed time for candidate low-risk requests is avoidable procedural delay rather than mandatory conservation, provenance, legal, community, or consent review.","Evidence that withdrawals, missed laboratory windows, and abandoned studies are frequent enough and causally related to review timing.","An auditable ex ante risk classifier with acceptable misclassification performance on historical cases.","Affected-party acceptance of eligibility rules, cumulative-consumption limits, documentation standards, and halt triggers.","Evidence that simpler intake guidance, form digitization, or communication improvements would not capture most attainable benefit.","Prior-art research sufficient to assess whether the proposed workflow is meaningfully distinct."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a time-bounded retrospective process audit at one repository: predefine candidate low-risk criteria, classify recent requests without changing their outcomes, and compare their submission-to-decision time, rework, withdrawals, missed windows, and delay causes with ordinary or higher-risk requests. Falsify the problem hypothesis if low-risk cases show little avoidable excess delay or if adverse outcomes are chiefly explained by incomplete applications, scientific weakness, scarcity, or mandatory substantive review; do not begin a live pilot unless a material procedural wedge and usable classification accuracy are demonstrated.","research_questions":["What proportion of recent requests would qualify as low risk under auditable criteria agreed by custodial and affected-party authorities?","How much low-risk elapsed time is attributable to routing and rework versus applicant incompleteness or mandatory substantive review?","Are withdrawals, missed laboratory windows, and incomplete studies causally associated with avoidable decision delay?","Can historical cases be classified consistently without overlooking cumulative sampling, cultural sensitivity, provenance, donor restrictions, or future option value?","Would improved forms, guidance, communication, or staffing produce comparable gains with less governance complexity?","What protection, equity, documentation, workload, objection, and consumption thresholds should preclude or halt a pilot?","Is there enough eligible volume to evaluate completed acceptable studies and protection outcomes credibly?","What existing sampling policies or expedited-review programs constitute relevant prior art?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["No external evidence of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, effect size, market size, realized impact, or institutional readiness is available.","Prior art and world novelty are unmeasured.","Specimens are non-renewable, and legal, cultural, consent, provenance, stewardship, and future-option interests cannot be treated as ordinary tradable delay costs.","Local record quality, request volume, staffing burden, classification accuracy, and consultation requirements could materially change feasibility and cost.","Faster decisions are not beneficial if they merely shift work, increase cumulative consumption, encourage request splitting, worsen inequity, or weaken trust and documentation."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet marks prior art as unsearched and provides no external comparison with repository sampling policies, expedited-review programs, or collection-governance pilots. This assessment therefore makes no claim about originality, prevalence, market position, or demonstrated performance."}