{"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__human_computer_interaction","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"human_computer_interaction","title":"Risk-tiered contextual authorization for legitimate low-risk enterprise actions","opportunity_summary":"Replace categorical role denials for a bounded class of reversible, non-sensitive actions with contextual, expiring, least-privilege grants while retaining logging, revocation, separation of duties, and high-risk exclusions. The proposed mechanism is testable against static roles and faster approval processing, but the packet does not establish that coarse authorization materially causes the reported workflow losses.","adopter_authorizer":"An enterprise product owner and authorization-policy owner, subject to security, privacy, data-owner, compliance, and worker-representative review where applicable.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal could improve governed task completion and reduce queues, abandonment, credential sharing, and external-tool workarounds, but the frequency and magnitude of these outcomes are explicitly unvalidated."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Blocked users, administrators, workflow managers, and governance teams have identifiable reasons to value improvement, yet the packet provides no observed demand, adoption inquiry, or evidence that these stakeholders regard coarse eligibility as the binding problem."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Contextual action-level grants directly change eligibility rather than merely accelerating tickets, and the comparison with static roles and approval streamlining can distinguish the claimed advantage. That advantage remains conditional on finding a genuinely low-risk action class."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The packet identifies a coherent mechanism and governance package but labels prior art unsearched and specifically notes possible overlap with contextual, attribute-based, or just-in-time authorization; no affirmative basis for distinctiveness is supplied."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Expiring grants, action-level policy checks, logging, revocation, and telemetry are concretely specified, but implementation depends on system-specific authorization architecture, reliable risk classification, cumulative-access controls, and audit integration."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The relevant product and authorization-policy owners are identified, required reviewers and affected parties are named, and rollback authority is defined. Cross-functional approval and data-owner obligations could still slow authorization."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate provides observable traces, rival explanations, explicit falsifiers, comparative outcomes, exclusions, and halt conditions, enabling a bounded retrospective study before any live grant."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Least privilege, expiration, logging, revocation, high-risk exclusions, incident triggers, and reversion to static roles form a strong safety net, while reducing credential sharing and external-tool displacement could itself improve governance. Residual aggregation, insider, equity, and surveillance risks remain."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The policy pattern could extend across workflows, but each action class may require local risk classification, data-owner review, integration work, equity testing, and monitoring, limiting straightforward replication."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded retrospective analysis of de-identified denial, ticket, abandonment, and administrator-mediated workflow traces for one reversible, non-sensitive workflow, including governance review and a comparison of competing denial causes.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing logs and ticket records can be accessed and linked without building major new telemetry.","De-identification and review are routine rather than requiring extensive legal or regulatory remediation.","The analysis covers one workflow and does not include a live authorization change."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design, implementation, security and privacy review, instrumentation, participant preparation, and evaluation setup for an expiring pilot covering one reversible, non-sensitive workflow.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The existing product supports extensible authorization checks, audit logging, and revocation.","No sensitive personal data, regulated decisions, privileged administration, or irreversible actions enter the pilot.","The organization can use existing identity, incident-response, and evaluation infrastructure."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Controlled production launch across several validated workflows, including policy engineering, user experience changes, governance approval, monitoring, training, support, and independent security, privacy, accessibility, and equity checks.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains within one organization and one principal enterprise platform.","Each included workflow has separately passed the low-risk classification and pilot thresholds.","Major replacement of the identity or authorization platform is unnecessary."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing policy review, access-risk monitoring, audit support, incident handling, grant revocation, equity and usability checks, help-desk support, and maintenance for a limited multi-workflow deployment.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Monitoring is integrated with existing security and support operations.","The deployment does not expand to highly regulated or privileged workflows.","Action classifications and authorization interfaces require periodic maintenance but not continuous redevelopment."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate states an observable, externally testable problem, but explicitly treats its material occurrence and causal diagnosis as hypotheses and supplies no trace or stakeholder evidence."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The enterprise product owner and authorization-policy owner are identified as decision authorities, with specified security, privacy, data-owner, compliance, and worker review."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that contextual grants will outperform static roles and approval-only streamlining on governed completion, queues, and workarounds without crossing predeclared protection thresholds."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A de-identified trace analysis for one reversible, non-sensitive workflow can compare coarse eligibility with necessary-review, interface-confusion, and administrative-scarcity explanations before any live grant."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The retrospective first step does not alter access, authority is identified, and the packet specifies exclusions, telemetry limits, halt triggers, revocation, notification, and rollback. Any later pilot remains contingent on identifying a defensible low-risk class."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The one-workflow scope permits broad resource bands, but the existing authorization architecture, data quality, integration burden, regulatory setting, and required reviewer effort are unspecified."}},"blocking_evidence":["Evidence that legitimate low-risk denials occur often enough and cause meaningful delay, abandonment, workarounds, administrative execution, or idle capability.","A defensible, auditable class of reversible and non-sensitive actions for which coarse role eligibility, rather than necessary review, is the binding constraint.","Evidence that contextual grants preserve non-negotiable security, privacy, separation-of-duties, accountability, accessibility, and equity protections, including cumulative-access risks.","Comparative evidence that changing eligibility offers an advantage over clearer interfaces, better information, faster approval routing, or additional administrative capacity.","System-specific evidence that grants can expire, be revoked, remain auditable, and integrate with incident response without disproportionate administrative complexity."],"next_evidence_step":"For one reversible, non-sensitive workflow, retrospectively analyze a bounded recent period of de-identified denial and ticket traces. Classify denied actions by coarse-role mismatch, necessary review, interface or information failure, and administrative scarcity; compare their subsequent completion, delay, abandonment, administrator execution, and workaround patterns. Do not proceed to a live pilot unless a predeclared materiality criterion is met and an auditable low-risk action class is found; falsify the problem diagnosis if eligible denials are rare, have no meaningful downstream loss, or are predominantly explained by the rival causes.","research_questions":["How frequently do apparently legitimate low-risk denials occur, and what measurable workflow consequences follow them?","Which denied actions can be classified as reversible and non-sensitive without overlooking inference, aggregation, insider-threat, or accountability risks?","Is categorical role allocation more explanatory than necessary review, interface confusion, missing information, poor ticket routing, or administrative scarcity?","What incremental outcome would contextual authorization deliver relative to approval streamlining for the same workflow?","Can cumulative grants, hoarding, gaming, rubber-stamping, and unequal access-request ability be detected and bounded?","What authorization, logging, revocation, telemetry, and incident-response capabilities already exist in the target system?","Would the added prompts and policy complexity create usability or accessibility losses that offset completion gains?","Does external prior art leave a distinct mechanism, governance package, or application-specific contribution worth testing?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence, severity, stakeholder demand, and realized impact are unsupported in the sealed packet.","The causal role of coarse authorization relative to the named rival explanations is unvalidated.","World novelty and differentiation from existing authorization approaches are unmeasured.","Security and privacy consequences of combining multiple individually low-risk grants are unresolved.","Technical effort and cost depend heavily on unknown platform architecture, telemetry quality, regulatory obligations, and organizational review processes.","Scalability cannot be inferred from a single workflow because risk classifications and affected-party burdens may be context-specific."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched. This assessment does not claim novelty, prevalence, market size, existing-product coverage, or superiority over contextual, attribute-based, risk-adaptive, or just-in-time authorization approaches. External research is required to determine whether the contribution is distinct, a governance synthesis, or an application-specific implementation."}