{"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__cultural_studies","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"cultural_studies","title":"Risk-tiered access for a bounded cultural archive collection","opportunity_summary":"The candidate would replace a coarse archive-access rule with authority-approved risk tiers and a conditional path for eligible low-risk items. It could recover legitimate cultural, community, teaching, and research uses while retaining substantive protections, but the existence and size of the avoidably blocked class, latent demand, authority acceptance, and net operational benefit are unestablished hypotheses.","adopter_authorizer":"A repository is the operational adopter, but it may act only within its mandate; rights holders, source-community or cultural-knowledge authorities, and applicable legal, ethics, and governance bodies authorize decisions assigned to them.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If a material avoidably blocked class exists, the proposal targets consequential losses in community memory work, teaching, research, critique, and equitable access. The magnitude remains uncertain because neither prevalence nor the number of feasible blocked uses is established."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate names affected users and authorities but supplies no observed requests, abandonment data, repository demand, or authority willingness. Latent demand and institutional appetite therefore remain speculative."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Changing eligibility and permission rules could outperform merely accelerating the existing case-by-case process, and the proposed baseline comparison is causal. Whether tiering materially improves completed legitimate uses, delay, or workload has not been tested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The packet expressly marks prior art as unsearched and makes no novelty claim. Internal coherence does not establish distinction from existing archival access, tiered-permission, or community-governance practices."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A one-collection audit, risk classification, conditional workflow, monitoring, expiry, and rollback are operationally concrete and bounded. Implementation is still constrained by difficult contextual classification and governance rather than by an identified technical impossibility."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The repository adopter and relevant authorizers are identifiable, and their authority is explicitly bounded. Feasibility is mixed because legal, rights-holder, cultural-authority, ethics, and repository approvals may be fragmented, and no concurrence is documented."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate provides separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a baseline, adverse-outcome measures, a bounded audit, a 90-day expiry, and rollback conditions. Preset tolerances, sampling details, demand measurement, and approved tier criteria still need definition."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Non-negotiable privacy, copyright, consent, cultural-protocol, preservation, and anti-exploitation checks protect against indiscriminate liberalization, with suspension and expiry as safeguards. Some cultural, privacy, or copying harms could nevertheless be collective or irreversible after misclassification."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"The workflow might be reusable, but classifications and authority arrangements are collection-, agreement-, community-, and context-specific. Scaling could multiply review burden, misclassification risk, and uncompensated governance labor, and collection-wide rollout is explicitly excluded."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and conduct the non-release audit of up to 100 items from one collection, including sampling, archival review, authority participation, legal or ethics input, demand evidence collection, and a decision memo against the problem falsifier.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing catalog records and authorized staff can support the audit without major digitization or conservation work.","Community and rights-holder participation is compensated where appropriate.","The audit does not open materials or build a production access system.","No unusually complex rights investigation is required for most sampled items."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"If the audit passes, co-design and approve risk tiers, safeguards, permitted purposes, escalation rules, monitoring, consent handling, staff procedures, training, and limited workflow changes for one collection.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The repository can adapt existing request and identity systems rather than procure a new platform.","Approvals remain limited to one collection and an opt-in low-risk class.","Legal, ethics, rights-holder, and cultural-authority coordination is substantive but does not require litigation or renegotiating many underlying agreements.","Governance labor is budgeted rather than shifted without compensation."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate and evaluate the specified 90-day opt-in pilot for approved low-risk items and purposes, including request handling, escalations, monitoring, incident response, user and affected-party feedback, workload measurement, and expiry or rollback.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Pilot volume is bounded and can be handled by a small cross-functional team.","Only preapproved items and purposes enter the pilot.","Evaluation includes comparison with the prior blanket or case-by-case baseline.","No serious incident triggers extensive remediation beyond the pilot scope."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Resource equivalent for maintaining a one-collection program after separate authorization, including classification updates, conditional access administration, escalations, monitoring, authority consultation, complaints, audits, training, and periodic renewal review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The estimate applies to one bounded collection, not repository-wide scaling.","Request and escalation volumes remain moderate.","Existing repository infrastructure remains usable.","Ongoing community and specialist governance work is compensated.","No major preservation, digitization, or custom security program is included."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet articulates a recognizable coarse-rule mechanism and observable indicators, but labels the problem a hypothesis and provides no observed denials, abandonment, queues, underuse, or separable low-risk class."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The repository is the identifiable workflow adopter, while rights holders, source-community authorities, and legal, ethics, and governance bodies retain their specified authorization roles."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate claims that an approved risk-tiered conditional path will improve legitimate completed uses or turnaround relative to blanket or discretionary case-by-case rules without exceeding specified harm and burden tolerances."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A non-release audit of up to 100 items from one collection is bounded and can test whether a material class of desired, feasible, mutually acceptable uses is blocked by coarse rather than substantive restrictions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The design preserves authority and supplies halt conditions, but competent authorities have not accepted the audit classifications or any lower-burden safeguards; rejection of every feasible safeguard is an explicit failure condition."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate bounds the initial work to one collection, up to 100 audited items, and a possible 90-day opt-in pilot, allowing broad resource bands to be stated with explicit assumptions despite low cost confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether one bounded collection contains a material separable class restricted by categorical procedure rather than item-specific legal, consent, cultural, preservation, or anti-exploitation requirements.","Whether informed prospective users show demand for feasible and mutually acceptable uses, rather than merely expressing general interest in access.","Whether the repository and all competent rights, cultural, legal, ethics, and governance authorities can agree on classifications, non-negotiable checks, compensation, and preset tolerances.","Whether tier classification can achieve acceptable reliability, including for linked or contextual sensitivity, without creating excessive review or escalation burden.","Whether a later authorized pilot improves completed legitimate uses or turnaround relative to baseline without unacceptable rights breaches, cultural complaints, inequitable access, preservation effects, uncontrolled copying, or uncompensated governance labor.","Whether the combined diagnosis, authority allocation, workflow, and reversible evaluation design is materially distinct from prior practice; the packet contains no prior-art evidence."],"next_evidence_step":"With the repository and competent cultural, rights, legal, and ethics authorities, preregister the sampling and classification rules and audit up to 100 items from one collection without opening access. Compare the share of desired, feasible, mutually acceptable uses blocked primarily by categorical procedure with the share blocked by item-specific substantive protections; do not advance if the former class is negligible, no informed latent demand appears, classification is unreliable, or authorities reject every feasible safeguard.","research_questions":["How many sampled items and desired uses are blocked primarily by a coarse procedural rule rather than a substantive protection?","What informed demand exists for specific feasible uses, and how is that demand distributed across community, teaching, scholarly, and institutionally resourced users?","Which authorities govern each item and purpose, and can they agree on low-risk criteria, prohibited uses, escalation, compensation, monitoring, and withdrawal rules?","How reliably can reviewers classify cultural, contextual, privacy, rights, preservation, and exploitation risks, including disagreements and false-low-risk assignments?","Against the existing blanket or case-by-case baseline, would a bounded pilot improve completed legitimate uses and turnaround without exceeding preset harm, inequity, and workload tolerances?","What documented archival access, tiered-permission, and community-governance practices already use similar mechanisms, and what incremental claim, if any, remains distinct?","What recurring staff and community-governance burden would the workflow create, and who would bear or be compensated for it?","Which harms can actually be contained or reversed after access, given the possibility of copying, decontextualized reuse, or collective cultural injury?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence and the size of the low-risk blocked class are unmeasured.","Stakeholder demand and repository or authority pull are unsupported by observed evidence.","Prior art and world novelty are unsearched.","No realized effect on access, turnaround, equity, harm, preservation, or workload is available.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges derived only from the sealed scope, not vendor quotes or observed operating data.","Risk-tier accuracy, acceptable tolerances, and authority concurrence are unresolved.","Results from one collection may not generalize because rights and cultural protocols are context-specific."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No conclusion about novelty, prevalence, market size, realized impact, or comparative practice is supportable from this packet. Prior art is explicitly unsearched; external research must precede any distinctiveness or novelty claim."}