{"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 protected equity reservations","opportunity_summary":"Assess a bounded municipal mechanism that varies curb prices or use schedules with temporal scarcity while preserving accessible and emergency spaces, applying equity credits and price bounds, and monitoring displacement and safety. The incremental claim is that addressing the temporal allocation mismatch will improve availability, loading reliability, search time, and blocked-lane outcomes relative to static rules with better information and enforcement alone.","adopter_authorizer":"The municipal transportation, planning, or other body legally responsible for curb regulation and pricing, subject to applicable council, accessibility, public-process, privacy, and revenue-use requirements.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the stated peak saturation, cruising, illegal stopping, and blocked loading coexist with usable nearby or off-peak capacity, improving allocation could recover traveler time and street capacity while reducing spillovers. The prevalence and magnitude of that mismatch are unsupported in the sealed packet, preventing the highest score."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Municipal agencies, delivery operators, businesses, residents, disabled travelers, and other street users have recognizable interests in reliable curb access and fewer blocked lanes. The packet contains no evidence that these parties demand this particular mechanism or would accept its pricing, monitoring, and distributional tradeoffs."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Unlike the stated nearest rival of better signs, payment, information, and enforcement under fixed rules, the proposal directly changes the temporal allocation incentive and defines measurable availability, search, loading, and blocked-lane outcomes. Its advantage disappears where scarcity is unavoidable or information and enforcement friction is the actual cause."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The composition of scarcity-responsive schedules, protected reservations, credits, price bounds, controls, halt thresholds, and sunset rules is coherent and testable. Prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness relative to existing curb-pricing and curb-management approaches is unverified."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal uses existing municipal substrates such as curb faces, signs, meters, permits, occupancy measurement, and enforcement systems and can be bounded to a small set of sites. Reliability of pricing, payment, monitoring, privacy controls, and enforcement integration remains locally unverified."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A competent municipal authorizer and a reversible, limited action are identified, with explicit exclusions and rollback. Local legal authority, council or public-process requirements, accessibility compliance, revenue constraints, and political acceptance are explicitly unverified."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, comparable control sites, observable outcomes, affected groups, and harm categories. Operational thresholds, measurement windows, attribution rules, and locally calibrated minimum effects are not yet defined."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preserved accessible and emergency spaces, equity credits, bounded prices, control-adjacent monitoring, expiration, and harm-triggered rollback materially limit downside and make learning more reversible. Some harms, including displacement, exclusion, privacy loss, and safety effects, may be difficult to attribute or reverse after they occur."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The mechanism can in principle be repeated across curb faces using common municipal pricing and enforcement infrastructure. Scaling is constrained by place-specific demand, protected uses, adjacent-neighborhood spillovers, technology, legal authority, public acceptance, and the need to recalibrate schedules and safeguards."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"A bounded matched-site observational study and feasibility review covering peak and off-peak occupancy, search or queue behavior, illegal stopping and loading, protected-use demand, adjacent slack, enforcement conditions, distributional incidence, data governance, and local authority.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The step is non-interventional and uses a small pre-specified set of candidate and comparison curb faces.","Some municipal occupancy, citation, permit, or curb-inventory data are available without building a new citywide system.","Labor includes study design, field observation or sensor access, stakeholder coordination, legal and privacy review, analysis, and pre-registration."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Preparation of a small time-limited controlled pilot, including local rule design, price bounds, equity-credit administration, signs or meter configuration, payment and enforcement integration, privacy controls, public communication, baseline measurement, and rollback readiness.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing meters, payment systems, or configurable signage can support most pilot functions.","The pilot covers a limited number of curb faces and does not require major civil construction.","Costs include municipal and partner labor, procurement, accessibility review, compliance, and independent evaluation setup."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch beyond an initial test across multiple districts or operational contexts, including production-grade monitoring, customer support, enforcement training, equity-credit operations, governance, evaluation, and neighborhood spillover management.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains municipal rather than regional and reuses substantial existing curb, meter, payment, and enforcement infrastructure.","No major roadway reconstruction or wholesale meter replacement is required.","Local public-process, procurement, and system-integration burdens could materially shift the band."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Recurring operation of a bounded municipal program, including software and data access, meter or signage maintenance, enforcement coordination, credit administration, privacy and accessibility compliance, outcome monitoring, audits, public support, and periodic schedule recalibration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The program covers several managed curb areas rather than the entire city.","Existing municipal staff and systems absorb part of enforcement and administration.","The estimate excludes major capital replacement, unrelated street redesign, and citywide expansion."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"12_TO_36_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Peak saturation, cruising, illegal stopping, unreliable loading, and simultaneous nearby or off-peak underuse are independently observable conditions, and the packet supplies a falsifier distinguishing mismatch from unavoidable physical scarcity."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies the municipal body legally responsible for curb regulation and pricing as the authorizer and confines action to that body's curb-management remit."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal predicts better availability, search time, loading reliability, and blocked-lane outcomes than fixed rules supplemented only by information and enforcement, while specifying offsetting harms that would falsify the claimed benefit."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A small, pre-specified matched-site observational study can test whether recurring peak mismatch and usable slack coexist and whether physical scarcity or information and enforcement friction better explain the observations, without changing curb rules."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate includes protected spaces, price bounds, equity credits, monitoring, sunset, and rollback, but local legal authority, accessibility compliance, privacy requirements, payment reliability, and the feasibility of enforcing distributional thresholds remain unverified."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The assessment can bound separate observational, pilot-startup, broader-launch, and recurring scopes in broad resource-equivalent bands, although local procurement, infrastructure condition, and compliance requirements create low confidence for deployment costs."}},"blocking_evidence":["Local observations establishing that peak search, illegal stopping, or unreliable loading recur alongside genuinely usable capacity at relevant nearby places or times.","Evidence separating static allocation mismatch from unavoidable physical scarcity, indispensable protected uses, concentrated destinations, weak enforcement, or information friction.","Local legal and administrative confirmation that bounded pricing or use schedules, equity credits, data collection, enforcement, expiration, and rollback are authorized.","Pre-registered definitions, measurement windows, minimum effects, distributional limits, safety thresholds, attribution rules, and halt decisions.","Technical feasibility evidence for reliable payment, signage, occupancy measurement, privacy protection, enforcement, exemptions, and lawful access.","Stakeholder evidence concerning acceptability and burden for disabled travelers, low-income and shift-work users, residents, workers, businesses, and adjacent neighborhoods.","Prior-art evidence clarifying whether the proposed mechanism composition or evaluation design is meaningfully distinct."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a time-bounded, non-interventional matched-site study on pre-specified candidate and comparison curb faces. Compare peak versus off-peak occupancy, search or queue time, illegal stopping and loading, protected-use demand, and adjacent usable slack while documenting enforcement and information conditions. The problem claim is falsified if recurring mismatch is absent or if unavoidable physical scarcity, protected demand, or information and enforcement friction explains the observations without a material residual attributable to static allocation.","research_questions":["Does recurring peak saturation coexist with lawful, practically usable slack at nearby locations or adjacent times after protected uses are accounted for?","How much observed search, illegal stopping, and unreliable loading is attributable to static allocation rather than physical scarcity, destination concentration, information gaps, or weak enforcement?","Which users can realistically retime, relocate, or substitute, and which users require reservations, exemptions, or credits to retain meaningful access?","Can the competent municipal body lawfully implement bounded schedules, credits, monitoring, enforcement, sunset, and rollback under local accessibility, privacy, public-process, and revenue rules?","What locally measurable minimum improvements and maximum safety, spillover, exclusion, and burden thresholds would govern a later controlled pilot?","Can existing signs, meters, payment systems, occupancy data, and enforcement workflows implement the mechanism reliably without denying lawful access?","Would burdens or violations shift to adjacent blocks or less powerful groups even if measured outcomes improve at treated curb faces?","What existing approaches combine dynamic curb pricing or scheduling with equity protections, controlled comparisons, and automatic rollback? "],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["No external sources were used, so problem prevalence, effect size, stakeholder demand, and realized impact are unmeasured.","The candidate's prior-art status is UNSEARCHED; internal coherence does not establish novelty or distinctiveness.","Local legal authority, accessibility compliance, privacy requirements, procurement conditions, and political acceptability are unverified.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not quotes or point estimates, and depend heavily on existing municipal infrastructure.","The causal response depends on users having feasible options to retime, relocate, or substitute without creating unacceptable displacement.","Protected-use demand may consume apparent slack, and willingness to pay cannot be assumed to represent social value.","Safety, distributional, and spillover effects require locally calibrated measures and attribution rules before intervention."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is unsearched and unverified. This closed-book assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, market position, existing implementations, or comparative historical performance; distinctiveness can be evaluated only after external prior-art research."}