{"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__biology_ecology","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"biology_ecology","title":"Risk-tiered matching and parallel approval for stranded native seed","opportunity_summary":"The proposal would use a shared compatibility record and parallel, risk-tiered review to identify viable native-seed lots that could safely satisfy restoration requests before seasonal windows close. It preserves pathogen, genetic, donor-stock, custody, consent, and regulatory gates, but the packet does not establish how often compatible seed is actually stranded or whether scarcity is the dominant constraint.","adopter_authorizer":"Native-seed custodians, restoration land managers, competent regulators, and rights-holding Indigenous governance bodies acting jointly within their respective jurisdictions.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the stated wedge exists, recovering viable seed before seasonal deadlines could reduce restoration delay while benefiting depleted populations; however, the frequency and aggregate ecological importance of recoverable matches are unmeasured."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The packet identifies affected practitioners, custodians, regulators, stewards, and ecosystems, but supplies no observed requests, commitments, complaints, adoption interest, or evidence that these parties prioritize workflow friction over seed scarcity."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Shared matching and parallel review directly address the proposed inventory and serial-approval barriers and have a defined 20% comparison against ordinary review, but no evidence shows they outperform current practice or expanded local collection and propagation."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The mechanism composition is coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched, so its distinctness from existing seed networks, transfer guidance, inventory systems, and approval reforms cannot be supported."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A shared record, shadow workflow, screening, and contained plots appear conceptually implementable for two common species, but the compatibility classifier, data interoperability, pathogen criteria, and reviewer-reliability procedures are not operationalized."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The necessary authorizers and jurisdictional limits are clearly identified, and no bypass is proposed, but unanimous coordination across custodians, managers, regulators, landholders, and Indigenous rights holders could be difficult and no participation has been secured."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a 30-request, two-species shadow review, ordinary-review comparison, quantitative falsifiers, exclusions, halt conditions, and rollback; readiness is reduced by the absence of a validated risk-tiering protocol and baseline data."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal could preserve otherwise lost restoration opportunities while explicitly protecting local adaptation, genetic integrity, pathogen control, donor reserves, governance rights, and equitable access; the benefit remains conditional on safe compatible lots actually being stranded."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Species-specific biology, provenance rules, pathogens, custody arrangements, Indigenous governance, and regulatory jurisdictions limit transferability, and evidence from two common species or contained plots may not generalize to other taxa or wild releases."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Audit and shadow-review 30 restoration requests involving two common native species, including inventory reconciliation, lot viability documentation, independent compatibility assessment, delay-cause coding, reviewer-agreement measurement, and comparison with ordinary review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing request, inventory, provenance, viability, and review records are substantially accessible.","The step uses existing lots and records without planting, transfer, or wild release.","A small multidisciplinary team can obtain custodian and governance participation without major new laboratory programs."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Develop the shared compatibility record, data agreements, risk-tier criteria, consent and custody controls, pathogen and genetic review procedures, workflow software, training, and independent oversight for a limited multi-partner program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The deployment remains limited to common species and a small number of participating organizations.","Existing inventory or case-management systems can be adapted rather than replaced.","Regulatory and rights-holder requirements do not require extensive jurisdiction-specific system redesign."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operate the proposed 12-month, 30-request shadow pathway and, only after unanimous clearance, establish contained common-garden plots with screening, monitoring, quarantine capacity, evaluation, and partner coordination.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only a small subset of lots reaches contained plots.","Suitable contained sites and established screening methods are available.","No threatened species, unscreened lots, cross-ecoregion wild releases, or unresolved-authority cases enter the pathway."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain records and integrations, coordinate reviews, conduct biological screening and audits, monitor equity and donor reserves, support governance participation, operate quarantine and incident procedures, and evaluate decision times and safe-match completion.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Program volume remains comparable to a limited regional operation rather than a national network.","Labor-intensive expert and governance review remains necessary despite parallelization.","Contained biological monitoring continues, while wild-release monitoring is outside this estimate."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"12_TO_36_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet gives recognizable observable indicators and a falsifier, but labels the causal wedge a hypothesis and provides no observations establishing that viable compatible lots are materially stranded by procedural friction."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Seed custodians, land managers, competent regulators, and rights-holding Indigenous governance bodies are explicitly identified as joint authorizers within their jurisdictions."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The lever is compared with ordinary review and fails if it improves neither safe-match completion nor median decision time by at least 20%, or if independent safety disagreement exceeds 10% of fast-path cases."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 12-month shadow review of 30 requests for two common species is bounded, excludes wild release and high-risk lots, and includes ordinary-review comparison, falsifiers, halt rules, quarantine, and reversion."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The proposal contains strong exclusions and rollback rules, but compatibility criteria, reviewer reliability, pathogen controls, equitable-access safeguards, and actual joint authorization have not been demonstrated."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"A limited audit and pilot can be scoped into broad bands, but the packet provides no partner count, data condition, laboratory needs, jurisdictional requirements, plot design, staffing plan, or validated classifier from which to support a firmer resource range."}},"blocking_evidence":["A complete request-and-inventory audit showing whether at least 10% of missed planting requests had an unused, viable, independently screened compatible lot delayed primarily by inventory, allocation, or procedural rules.","Predefined and independently reviewable criteria for provenance, pathogen, genetic, donor-stock, custody, consent, uncertainty routing, and risk-tier assignment.","Measured agreement among independent reviewers, including whether safety disagreement stays at or below the proposed 10% threshold.","Documented willingness and authority of custodians, land managers, regulators, landholders, and Indigenous rights holders to participate without weakening consent or statutory review.","Evidence distinguishing allocation and approval friction from true scarcity, nonviability, biological incompatibility, or substantively necessary review delays."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct the proposed 12-month shadow review on 30 requests for two common native species without transfer, planting, or wild release in this first diagnostic phase. For each request, compare ordinary-review outcomes and elapsed time with a preregistered shared-record and parallel-review simulation, using independent viability and compatibility assessments. Falsify the wedge if fewer than 10% of missed requests involve a viable compatible lot delayed primarily by inventory, allocation, or procedural rules; do not advance the lever if projected safe-match completion and median decision time fail to improve by at least 20% or reviewer safety disagreement exceeds 10%.","research_questions":["What proportion of missed planting requests had an unused, viable, independently screened compatible lot, and what specifically prevented its use?","How much delay is attributable to inventory visibility, allocation, and serial workflow rather than necessary biological, legal, consent, or custody review?","Can pathogen, provenance, genetic-risk, donor-stock, custody, consent, and uncertainty criteria be defined prospectively with acceptable independent-reviewer agreement?","Does the proposed workflow improve safe-match completion and median decision time by at least 20% against ordinary review without changing substantive safeguards?","Which parties gain or lose access under the matching rules, especially local and Indigenous users, and can unequal allocation be detected before any transfer?","How representative are results from two common species and contained plots of other species, jurisdictions, ecosystems, and potential wild-release decisions?","Does the full mechanism duplicate or materially extend existing native-seed inventory, transfer, and approval practices?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence and the proportion of recoverable stranded seed are unsupported.","The relative importance of procedural friction versus genuine seed scarcity is unknown.","Compatibility and risk-tier classifiers are named but not validated or operationalized.","Stakeholder demand, participation, and joint authorization have not been demonstrated.","Prior art and mechanism distinctiveness are unsearched.","Contained-plot evidence may not predict delayed, population-level, or wild-ecosystem effects.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on assumed limited scope, not observed expenditures or quotations."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched and supplies no external comparison with existing native-seed networks, transfer guidance, inventory platforms, or approval reforms. This assessment therefore makes no claim of novelty, prevalence, market size, realized impact, or duplication."}