{"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__architecture_urban_planning","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"architecture_urban_planning","title":"Scarcity-Responsive Curb Access with Equity Reservations","opportunity_summary":"Evaluate whether bounded, time-sensitive curb prices and use schedules can reduce peak saturation, cruising, illegal stopping, and unreliable loading by shifting flexible demand while preserving protected access through reservations, credits, price bounds, monitoring, and rollback. The proposal is structurally testable, but local mismatch prevalence, causal attribution, comparative performance, legal feasibility, and distinctiveness remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"The municipal transportation or planning agency responsible for curb operations, authorized by the municipal body legally empowered to regulate and price curb access, subject to council, accessibility, public-process, and revenue-use requirements.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the stated peak mismatch is material, reducing cruising, double-parking, blocked loading, and unreliable access could recover traveler time and street capacity while benefiting several street users. The candidate supplies no external evidence about local prevalence, baseline magnitude, or achievable effect size, preventing the highest score."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies municipal agencies, businesses, operators, residents, disabled travelers, and other affected street users with recognizable incentives to improve curb reliability. It provides no evidence of expressed demand, budget commitment, political support, or stakeholder willingness to accept variable pricing."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Unlike the stated baseline and nearest rival, the proposal directly changes temporal allocation incentives rather than only information, payment, or enforcement friction. Whether demand can shift enough to outperform those alternatives without merely moving scarcity and burdens is explicitly unresolved."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The composition of scarcity-responsive schedules, equity protections, controlled comparison, harm thresholds, and sunset is clearly differentiated from the stated local baseline. Prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness beyond that comparison cannot be established closed-book."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal operates through named curb assets, meters, permits, signs, enforcement, and monitoring, and confines implementation to selected curb faces. Compatibility with local equipment, payment systems, occupancy measurement, privacy requirements, enforcement reliability, and equity-credit administration is unknown."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A specific municipal authorizer and a reversible authorized first step are identified. Actual statutory pricing authority, council approval, accessibility compliance, public-process obligations, revenue constraints, and institutional willingness remain locally unverified."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies observable outcomes, control sites, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, adverse-effect measures, and rollback logic. Operational thresholds, attribution rules, measurement windows, and locally calibrated minimum effects still must be defined before deployment."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Protected accessible and emergency spaces, equity credits, price bounds, control-adjacent monitoring, halt thresholds, restoration of prior rules, and a sunset materially limit downside. They do not establish that displacement, privacy, exclusion, enforcement, or safety harms will be detected or corrected reliably."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The mechanism could in principle be repeated across curb faces using municipal operating systems, but each location may require demand diagnosis, legal review, protected-use mapping, stakeholder process, technology configuration, enforcement capacity, and spillover monitoring. No evidence supports transferability or citywide economics."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded matched-site diagnostic study measuring peak occupancy, search or queue indicators, illegal stopping, loading reliability, protected-use requirements, and adjacent or off-peak usable slack before any pricing intervention.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing curb inventories and some operational data are accessible.","The study covers a small pre-specified set of candidate and comparison curb faces.","Temporary manual observation or limited privacy-preserving sensors are sufficient.","The band includes study design, data access, field observation, analysis, privacy review, and stakeholder coordination."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Pre-launch design and configuration for a small controlled pilot, including legal and accessibility review, price and exemption rules, equity-credit design, signs and payment configuration, stakeholder process, preregistration, staff training, and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing meters, mobile payment, permits, and enforcement systems can be configured rather than replaced.","No major civil works or citywide procurement is required.","The municipality can use existing personnel and contracting channels.","Local approval requirements do not require a prolonged legislative or infrastructure program."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operation and evaluation of the time-limited controlled pilot across a small set of curb faces, including field equipment adjustments, credits, communications, enforcement, occupancy and spillover monitoring, safety review, independent analysis, and rollback capacity.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The pilot runs long enough to compare representative peak periods but remains geographically bounded.","Existing payment and enforcement infrastructure is substantially reusable.","Evaluation includes control sites and distributional outcomes.","The scope excludes citywide rollout, major street reconstruction, and removal of protected spaces."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Annual resource equivalent for continuing the bounded pilot-scale service, including software and data services, payment administration, equity credits, enforcement, maintenance, privacy and compliance work, monitoring, public reporting, and periodic evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["This is a pilot-scale operating range rather than a citywide estimate.","Monitoring of protected access, spillovers, safety, and distributional burdens continues.","Existing municipal assets and staff remain available.","Costs and revenues are assessed separately; parking revenue is not treated as a cost offset or success criterion."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines an independently observable mismatch through recurring peak saturation, cruising or queues, illegal stopping, unreliable loading, and simultaneous nearby or off-peak slack, with a falsifier that distinguishes mismatch from unavoidable scarcity."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Municipal transportation or planning agencies are identifiable adopters, and the candidate names the municipal body legally responsible for curb regulation and pricing as the required authorizer."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that bounded scarcity-responsive allocation will improve availability, search time, loading reliability, and blocked-lane outcomes relative to fixed rules and control sites without unacceptable safety, access, spillover, or distributional harm."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A small matched-site diagnostic can first test for recurring peak mismatch and usable slack against comparable locations and the candidate's problem falsifier without changing curb rules or exposing users to pricing risk."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate supplies exclusions, protected spaces, monitoring, halt rules, rollback, and a competent authority model, but local legal authority, accessibility compliance, privacy acceptability, enforcement reliability, and the feasibility of equity protections are unverified."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet bounds the pilot operationally but gives no installed-system inventory, procurement requirements, site count, duration, staffing model, data-access terms, or approval pathway; only assumption-dependent broad resource bands can be assigned."}},"blocking_evidence":["Matched local observations establishing recurring coexistence of peak search, queues, illegal stopping, or unreliable loading with genuinely usable nearby or off-peak capacity.","Evidence distinguishing static allocation mismatch from unavoidable physical scarcity, indispensable protected reservations, weak enforcement, or information and payment friction.","Local legal, accessibility, privacy, public-process, and revenue-use review confirming authority for a bounded pilot, exemptions, data collection, halt actions, and rollback.","Operational definitions and preregistered thresholds for meaningful improvement, protected access, safety events, adjacent spillover, payment failures, and concentrated distributional burdens.","A bounded prior-art review establishing whether the proposed mechanism composition or test design offers a meaningful incremental contribution.","Feasibility evidence that payment, signage, monitoring, enforcement, equity credits, and rollback can function reliably with the local installed systems."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a time-bounded matched-site diagnostic on pre-specified candidate and comparison curb faces, covering representative peak and slack periods without changing prices. Compare occupancy, search or queue indicators, illegal stopping, loading reliability, protected-use demand, and adjacent capacity. Stop advancement if observations show no recurring mismatch with usable slack or indicate that unavoidable scarcity, protected uses, or information and enforcement friction explain the behavior better than static allocation.","research_questions":["Does recurring peak dysfunction coexist with legally and operationally usable slack at relevant nearby locations or times?","How much of the observed problem is attributable to static allocation rather than physical scarcity, protected uses, weak enforcement, or information and payment friction?","Which users can realistically retime, relocate, or substitute, and which require reservations, exemptions, or credits?","Can local law and process authorize variable curb rules, equity protections, privacy-preserving monitoring, and prompt rollback?","What minimum changes in availability, search, loading reliability, and blocked-lane behavior would justify a pilot relative to controls?","How should safety, protected access, adjacent spillover, and concentrated burdens be measured and attributed?","Can existing meters, permits, payment systems, signs, and enforcement support bounded schedules without arbitrary denial of lawful access?","Does prior art already cover the mechanism composition, safeguards, or controlled-pilot architecture?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["No external evidence establishes problem prevalence, baseline magnitude, stakeholder demand, effect size, or transferability.","Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty and comparative distinctiveness are unmeasured.","Local legal authority and approval requirements are not established.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges conditioned on substantial reuse of existing infrastructure.","The substitutability of curb demand across time and nearby locations is unknown.","Protected-use demand may consume apparent slack and invalidate the proposed allocation response.","Pricing may displace burdens rather than reduce total delay or blocked-lane behavior.","Safety, accessibility, privacy, enforcement, and distributional safeguards are specified conceptually but not locally validated."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No conclusion is drawn about novelty, prevalence, market size, realized impact, adoption, or existing implementations. Distinctiveness is assessed only against the baseline and nearest rival stated in the sealed candidate; external prior art requires separate research."}