{"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__earth_sciences","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"earth_sciences","title":"Risk-tiered access allocation for geological-core archives","opportunity_summary":"Test whether risk classification, streamlined review, and expiring reservations can increase eligible non-destructive reuse of geological specimens without weakening integrity, provenance, rights, equity, or future-option protections. The proposed access wedge, its magnitude, and the intervention's distinctiveness remain unverified hypotheses.","adopter_authorizer":"The geological repository's legally accountable governing body, with regulator and Indigenous, source-community, or other rights-holder concurrence wherever required by law or agreement.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"If coarse approvals or reservations strand usable holdings, the proposal could reduce research delay and avoid some recollection or drilling. The packet provides no observations establishing how often this occurs or how much knowledge or collection cost is affected."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Researchers, monitoring agencies, repository staff, funders, and rights holders are identifiable, but the packet contains no expressed demand, complaints, participation commitments, or evidence that any archive regards the hypothesized wedge as material."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Unlike the stated metadata-upgrade rival, risk-tiered review and reservation expiry directly address approval and allocation rules. Advantage is conditional because the packet has not shown that those rules, rather than legitimate scarcity, rights constraints, or labor limits, cause delay."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is specific enough to compare with existing policies, but prior art is explicitly unsearched, so it may reproduce established archive-access practices or pilots."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A non-destructive-imaging workflow, risk tiers, expiry rules, audit logging, and shadow allocation are operationally plausible without new scientific hardware. Implementation still requires eligibility rules, data access, staff capacity, and protected-outcome thresholds that are not yet specified."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The accountable repository governing body is clearly identified and the proposal recognizes required regulator and rights-holder concurrence. Feasibility remains mixed because the applicable legal authority, agreements, and willingness to concur are not established."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, measurable timing and completion outcomes, a 90-day setting, and rollback conditions. It does not establish record availability or preregister comparator selection, workload measures, equity limits, or several stop thresholds."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The design limits live testing to non-destructive imaging, keeps destructive reallocations in shadow mode, preserves existing provenance and consent controls, specifies breach-based halts, and returns cases to standard review. These safeguards reduce downside while permitting evidence collection, although they are not yet operationalized."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Risk classification, expiring reservations, and audit logging could be reused across repositories, but collection scarcity, provenance agreements, rights-holder governance, fee structures, staffing, and metadata quality may require substantial archive-specific adaptation."}},"score_confidence":"LOW","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded retrospective audit at one archive, including request-record extraction, blinded cause coding, holdings and reservation review, staff-workload analysis, protected-group incidence checks, and preregistration of decision criteria.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Usable administrative records already exist and can be accessed without major digitization.","The audit covers one archive and does not alter live access decisions.","Repository staff, governance, and rights-holder review time are included as resource-equivalent cost.","No exact sample size, record condition, or agreement complexity is supplied."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Prepare the proposed 90-day non-destructive-imaging pilot through risk-tier design, eligibility and stop-rule specification, legal and rights review, workflow configuration, audit logging, staff training, and evaluation setup.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing imaging equipment and core-handling facilities are adequate.","The pilot is confined to one archive and adds no destructive sampling.","No major collection-management system replacement is required.","Required concurrence can be obtained through bounded coordination rather than prolonged negotiation."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Move from a successful pilot to an approved one-archive operating process, including finalized policy, system integration, communications, staff transition, monitoring controls, and initial governance review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains limited to one archive.","Pilot evidence supports continuation without redesigning ownership, fees, or substantive rights controls.","Existing staff and software can absorb part of the workflow.","No major remediation of provenance records or physical facilities is required."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing request triage, curatorial handling, reservation monitoring, audit-log maintenance, equity and integrity review, rights-holder coordination, software support, and periodic evaluation at one archive.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Demand does not rebound beyond available curatorial capacity.","Non-destructive access remains the principal expedited pathway.","The archive retains existing stewardship funding and facilities.","The packet provides no workload volume or staffing baseline."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The actors, mechanism, observable blockage, and consequences are recognizable, but every central prevalence and causation claim is labeled as a hypothesis and no archive records support it."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet identifies the repository's legally accountable governing body and specifies regulator and rights-holder concurrence where required."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal predicts that risk-tiered review and reservation expiry will improve eligible-request decision time by at least 25% or increase completion relative to the current process, while preserving declared protected outcomes."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A one-archive administrative audit can compare low-risk non-destructive requests with destructive or rights-constrained requests and apply the stated problem falsifier without changing live access."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The proposal includes exclusions, concurrence requirements, halt conditions, and rollback, but the packet does not establish that necessary legal and rights-holder authority is available or that unresolved provenance restrictions permit a pilot."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The intervention and one-archive scope are bounded enough for broad resource bands, but the packet supplies no workload, system condition, staffing, digitization, legal-review, or coordination evidence with which to validate them."}},"blocking_evidence":["No administrative evidence establishes that coarse approval, fee, or reservation rules strand scientifically usable holdings.","Delay and rejection have not been decomposed between avoidable procedure and genuine scarcity, mandatory review, unresolved rights, weak requests, or limited handling labor.","No stakeholder evidence demonstrates researcher demand, repository willingness, or required regulator and rights-holder concurrence.","Prior art is unsearched, leaving incremental distinctiveness unsupported.","Pilot eligibility, comparator construction, workload limits, equity thresholds, protected-outcome measures, and continuation criteria are incompletely specified.","Implementation resource requirements cannot be validated without archive-specific records, system information, and staffing data."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a preregistered, blinded retrospective audit at one willing archive using a fixed recent request cohort. Compare low-risk non-destructive requests with destructive or rights-constrained requests on decision time, completion, stated rejection cause, staff effort, reservation use, and user-group incidence. Classify whether delay arose from coarse procedure or genuine scarcity and mandatory protections. Treat the problem as falsified if nearly all delay or rejection is attributable to genuine scarcity, required substantive review, unresolved rights, lack of qualified requests, or if no accessible holdings are stranded by coarse rules.","research_questions":["What share of delayed or rejected requests concerns holdings that could be accessed non-destructively under existing provenance, consent, embargo, biosafety, and custody requirements?","How much delay is attributable to uniform review, fixed fees, or persistent reservations rather than specimen scarcity, staff scarcity, unresolved rights, or request quality?","Which existing policies or pilots already use risk-tiered review, reservation expiry, shadow allocation, or differentiated fees for geological collections?","Would repository leadership, regulators, and applicable rights holders authorize a bounded non-destructive pilot under preregistered stop rules?","How would the proposed workflow affect curatorial workload and access incidence across differently resourced institutions and affected communities?","Can eligibility, equity, integrity, future-option, and rollback thresholds be measured reliably from available records and pilot logs?","What archive-specific systems, staffing, legal review, and coordination resources would startup and recurring operation require?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment with no external sources or archive observations.","Problem prevalence, recoverable loss, stakeholder demand, and realized impact are unmeasured.","World novelty and prior art are explicitly unmeasured.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not verified estimates.","Legal, agreement-based, provenance, consent, and Indigenous-rights constraints are archive-specific and unresolved.","The nonrenewable nature of specimens limits analogy to ordinary unused service capacity."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The packet marks prior art as UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that risk-tiered access, expedited non-destructive review, reservation expiry, shadow allocation, or related governance mechanisms are novel, rare, prevalent, or absent from existing geological repositories."}