{"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__aviation_aeronautics","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"aviation_aeronautics","title":"Bounded Airport Slot Reallocation and Exchange","opportunity_summary":"At a capacity-constrained airport, the proposal would test whether historic-precedence and utilization rules strand lawfully contestable slots while qualified demand remains unmet, then use a supervised voluntary exchange and eligibility-based reallocation pool without increasing declared capacity. The causal claim is testable and safety-bounded, but the airport-specific problem, legal authority, comparative benefit, and distinctiveness are unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"The legally competent airport slot coordinator or aviation authority, with airport and air-navigation safety concurrence and required due process.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"More reliable use of fixed airport capacity could improve service and access without capacity expansion, but the candidate provides no airport-specific evidence of stranded slots, displaced demand, or impact magnitude."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Applicant carriers, passengers, shippers, and the airport could benefit, yet the packet contains no expressed demand, commitment, participation evidence, or demonstrated dissatisfaction from an adopting authority or affected stakeholder."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The pool directly targets timely surrender and contestability and may be better targeted than pricing if stale allocation is the binding cause, but no comparison establishes improvement over ordinary returns, bilateral coordination, existing thresholds, pricing, or auctions."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The combination of shadow allocation, voluntary exchange, eligibility rules, safeguards, and sunset is coherent, but prior art is expressly unsearched and existing slot-coordination practices cannot be assessed closed-book."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate identifies operational records, a shadow-allocation phase, bounded slot bands, monitoring, and rollback; implementation appears technically feasible if data can be linked, although scoring rules, system integration, and gaming controls remain unspecified."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A competent coordinator or aviation authority is identifiable and the initial step can remain retrospective, shadow, or voluntary, but jurisdiction-specific authority, incumbent rights, due process, and safety concurrence are unresolved."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"Observable measures, baseline, confounders, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, protected outcomes, and halt criteria are specified. Readiness is limited by unknown record access, data quality, and the absence of a named airport."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"The design explicitly protects essential connectivity and fair access and could benefit connectivity-dependent communities, but it could also reduce regional service or exclude smaller carriers, and no distributional benefit is established."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The general shadow-review and supervised-pool method could be repeated across airports, but slot interdependence, local congestion patterns, governing instruments, environmental constraints, and authority structures make transfer airport-specific."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Retrospective distortion review for one airport using several comparable scheduling seasons, including data preparation, confounder controls, qualified-request analysis, protected-outcome checks, and a decision memorandum.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Relevant slot, operation, cancellation, return, request, reliability, and protected-outcome records can be accessed without purchasing a major new dataset.","Work covers one airport and does not include live reassignment.","Legal work is limited to preliminary authority screening."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Design and preparation of a one-season shadow allocation and voluntary-exchange pilot for selected slot bands, including rules, carrier consultation, legal and safety review, data interfaces, monitoring design, and staff training.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing coordination systems can support exports or limited interfaces rather than full replacement.","The pilot remains voluntary or limited to already-lawfully-eligible slots.","One airport and a bounded subset of slot bands are included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Execution and independent evaluation of one scheduling season of shadow allocation plus voluntary exchanges, including participant support, monitoring, audit, protected-outcome review, and sunset or rollback administration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No increase in declared capacity or safety-system modification is required.","Operational reassignment occurs only for surrendered or already-lawfully-eligible slots.","Material litigation, carrier compensation, and major bespoke software procurement are excluded."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Ongoing administration at one airport, including eligibility review, exchange supervision, data operations, audits, carrier coordination, protected-outcome monitoring, periodic rule review, and compliance support.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The program remains bounded to one airport.","Existing authority and airport personnel provide part of the operational capacity.","No major enforcement proceeding or core scheduling-system replacement is included."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The problem is clearly specified and externally testable through airport records, but the candidate expressly supplies only a hypothesis and no airport-specific evidence that the allocation wedge exists."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies the legally competent slot coordinator or aviation authority, with airport and air-navigation safety concurrence, as the authorizer."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that a supervised pool improves reliable utilization and service relative to historic-precedence allocation while holding declared capacity and protected constraints fixed, with a separate intervention falsifier."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A retrospective airport-level distortion review can test the stated problem falsifier without operational reassignment or live deployment."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Safety limits and rollback are explicit, but jurisdiction-specific reallocation authority, incumbent interests, due process, and required concurrences remain unresolved."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate bounds the pilot activities, but no airport, data-access arrangement, system architecture, staffing model, jurisdiction, or participant count is supplied, so even broad cost bands have low confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["Airport-specific evidence of persistent coexistence between eligible unused or weakly utilized slots and qualified unmet demand attributable to allocation rules.","Jurisdiction-specific confirmation of the competent authority, treatment of incumbent slot interests, and due-process requirements.","Comparative evidence that the bounded pool improves reliable utilization or delivered service over the shadow baseline without unacceptable safety, access, concentration, connectivity, noise, or emissions effects.","Prior-art comparison covering existing surrender, exchange, reallocation, scoring, and sunset practices.","Evidence that enough carriers and eligible slots would participate to avoid a pool too thin for an informative test."],"next_evidence_step":"For one candidate airport, conduct a retrospective review covering multiple comparable scheduling seasons and compare allocated-versus-operated slot series, timely returns, qualified unmet requests, reliability, and protected outcomes under the actual rules against a reconstructed shadow allocation. Control for weather, maintenance, cancellations, and safety restrictions; falsify the problem if no persistent rule-attributable coexistence of eligible weakly used slots and qualified unmet demand is found. Do not reassign live slots in this step.","research_questions":["Does a persistent allocation wedge remain after controlling for weather, maintenance, cancellations, safety restrictions, and legitimate network dependencies?","Which slots would be lawfully eligible for voluntary exchange or reallocation, and which authority and due-process requirements apply?","Is the eligible pool large enough, and is expected voluntary participation sufficient, to produce an informative test?","What comparison rule and minimum improvement threshold would distinguish material gains in reliable utilization or delivered service from schedule reshuffling?","How would the pool affect essential connectivity, smaller-carrier access, concentration, passenger disruption, noise, and emissions across adjacent periods?","Can eligibility, valuation, and utilization metrics resist strategic operation, withholding, cancellation, and other gaming?","How does the proposed mechanism differ from existing slot-return, exchange, secondary-trading, or reallocation practices?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment with no external evidence of prevalence, stakeholder demand, prior art, realized impact, or market size.","The candidate names no airport, jurisdiction, governing instrument, dataset, system architecture, or participating carrier set.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges rather than estimates and exclude unknown litigation, compensation, or major system-replacement exposure.","Impact and scalability cannot be generalized beyond an airport-specific test.","Operational reallocation should not proceed unless the empirical premise and lawful authority are both established."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched. This assessment makes no claim that supervised slot surrender, exchange, eligibility-based reallocation, shadow allocation, safeguards, or sunset provisions are novel, rare, or absent from current aviation practice."}