{"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__material_culture_museum_studies","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"material_culture_museum_studies","title":"Risk-Preserving Release of Unused Museum Collection-Study Slots","opportunity_summary":"Test whether fixed holds and inflexible release rules create recurring, transferable idle collection-study capacity while qualified demand is blocked, before considering confirmation deadlines and transparent reassignment among already approved users and low-risk objects. The opportunity is conditional because the sealed candidate provides no local evidence that recoverable surplus exists.","adopter_authorizer":"A museum official with authority over collections access, subject to required conservation, security, legal, ethics, and source- or descendant-community approvals.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Recovering genuinely transferable slot-hours could reduce researcher delay and increase authorized study without adding physical capacity, but the frequency and magnitude of the proposed wedge are explicitly unmeasured."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies researchers who may be blocked and institutional objectives that could benefit, but supplies no observations of complaints, unmet demand, leadership priority, or willingness to change access rules."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Changing confirmation, release, and reassignment entitlements directly addresses stranded eligible capacity that the stated interface-only rival cannot recover when existing allocation rules remain binding; advantage disappears if idle slots are not transferable."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The museum-specific safeguards and compatibility logic make the adaptation coherent, but confirmation deadlines, waitlists, and reassignment are broadly intuitive mechanisms and prior art is explicitly unsearched."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A one-room diagnostic and a later manual or lightweight rules pilot appear technically straightforward because they operate on existing requests, approvals, cancellations, and slots; compatibility classification and sensitive-data handling add material implementation work."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A lead museum authority is identified, and the intervention preserves existing substantive approvals, but conservation, legal, ethics, security, and sometimes source-community authority create multiple necessary gates whose willingness is unknown."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal defines observable states, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a baseline, safety thresholds, and rollback, but currently rests entirely on a hypothesis with no local incidence or outcome evidence."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate includes risk tiers, unchanged protective gates, excluded actions, a fixed term, predefined harm thresholds, immediate suspension, and rollback, substantially limiting downside during later testing; classification or governance errors remain possible."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The allocation logic could be reused across rooms or museums, but object fragility, staff expertise, setup requirements, legal restrictions, and community authority make transferability highly context-specific and prevent assuming uniform scaling."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Bounded analysis of one study room covering requests, eligibility, cancellations, classified idle slot-hours, delays, staff workload, and compatibility over a fixed historical or prospective window, with no booking-rule change.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Relevant scheduling and approval records already exist and are sufficiently structured.","Museum staff, conservation staff, and access-governance representatives must help classify apparent idle time and blocked demand.","The analysis uses privacy-preserving extracts and does not require major software procurement.","The window is limited to one room and does not attempt museum-wide prevalence estimation."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and approval of a fixed-term, one-room pilot for pre-approved users and low-risk objects, including rules, compatibility criteria, communications, incident thresholds, staff training, and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The diagnostic first establishes recurring recoverable surplus.","Existing scheduling tools can support confirmation and reassignment manually or through minor configuration.","No new conservation, security, or community-authorization process is created.","Legal, ethics, security, and required community review can be completed within ordinary institutional processes."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Launch beyond the initial bounded pilot across multiple eligible collection-study workflows, including system configuration, governance review, training, monitoring, evaluation, and sensitive-data controls.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Expansion remains within one museum and excludes restricted or high-risk materials unless separately authorized.","Some scheduling integration or workflow development is required.","Launch includes compensated staff time and an outcome and equity evaluation.","Physical rooms, conservation capacity, and staffing levels are not expanded."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Ongoing administration, compatibility review, waitlist management, incident and equity monitoring, reporting, rule maintenance, and periodic governance review for a limited institutional program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Most workflow activity is absorbed through configured existing systems.","Recurring scope is limited to one museum and a subset of study appointments.","No dedicated full-time team or major software license is required.","Staff workload is measured and compensated rather than displaced invisibly."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Unused slot-hours, blocked qualified requests, queues, and unreassignable cancellations are observable, but the candidate explicitly provides no evidence that recurring transferable overlap attributable to allocation rules occurs in any museum."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies the museum official authorized over collections access, with conservators, legal or ethics officers, security functions, and required source-community authorities acting as substantive gates."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The distinct claim is that confirmation and reassignment rules improve qualified filled-slot-hours or delay relative to fixed booking while protective approvals remain unchanged; both benefit and harm falsifiers are specified."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"One room can be examined for a fixed window by classifying requests, cancellations, idle eligible hours, compatibility, and blocked qualified demand, with no live rule change required."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The diagnostic can use controlled records without altering access, while any later pilot is expressly gated by conservation, rights, consent, legal, ethics, security, and community authority and includes suspension and rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate bounds an initial intervention to one room, pre-approved users, low-risk objects, and a fixed term, permitting broad resource bands despite uncertainty about records, integrations, and governance effort."}},"blocking_evidence":["No local evidence establishes recurring overlap between genuinely transferable idle capacity and blocked qualified demand caused by allocation rules.","Apparent idle time has not been separated from necessary conservation, setup, documentation, staff recovery, security, or object-care time.","No evidence shows that waiting requests are eligible and compatible with the specific object, staff skill, setup, authorization, and time available.","The administrative workload, privacy implications, distributional effects, and likelihood of strategic booking under revised rules are unknown.","Prior art and current museum access practices are unsearched, so distinctiveness cannot be established."],"next_evidence_step":"For one study room and a predefined historical or prospective window, compare observed fixed-booking performance with a counterfactual reassignment simulation limited to pre-approved users and low-risk, compatibility-matched objects. Measure qualified filled-slot-hours, delays, late cancellations, staff handling time, and distribution across applicant groups. Falsify the problem if no recurring allocation-attributable overlap remains after staff skill, setup, conservation, authorization, and recovery needs are classified; do not alter live bookings at this stage.","research_questions":["How often does transferable idle capacity coincide with compatible, qualified blocked demand after all protective and operational constraints are applied?","What share of apparent idle time is necessary for conservation, setup, documentation, security, staff recovery, or unpredictable object care?","Would confirmation and reassignment have improved filled eligible slot-hours or reduced delay in a retrospective simulation relative to the fixed-booking baseline?","Which confirmation windows and priority rules avoid disadvantaging distant, disabled, time-constrained, community-authorized, or less-resourced researchers?","What additional staff work would classification, notification, reassignment, monitoring, and dispute handling create?","Can applicant and collection data be processed for matching and evaluation without disclosing sensitive information?","What incident, workload, inequity, concentration, complaint, and gaming thresholds would relevant authorities accept before a pilot?","Do existing museum policies or studies already implement or evaluate materially similar release-and-reassignment rules?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence, incidence, and magnitude are unsupported in the sealed candidate.","No realized effect on utilization, delay, equity, cultural value, safety, rights, or workload is established.","Compatibility between idle slots and waiting demand cannot be inferred from aggregate scheduling data alone.","Authority is distributed, and required institutional or community consent may vary by material.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not estimates based on observed records, staffing, vendors, or local compliance requirements.","Scalability is limited by heterogeneous objects, restrictions, expertise, preparation needs, and governance arrangements.","Throughput is not assumed to equal cultural or public value."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched. This assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, comparative market position, existing museum practice, or published evidence; external policy and literature research is required before any distinctiveness claim."}