{"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__neuroscience","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"neuroscience","title":"Transferable Imaging-Core Slots with Rapid Rematching","opportunity_summary":"Conditionally reduce stranded neuroscience scanner capacity by making eligible reservations transferable, releasing unused slots earlier, and rapidly rematching compatible, approved studies under explicit safety and protected-access constraints. The opportunity exists only if a local audit confirms compatible unmet demand coexisting with avoidably idle or poorly allocated capacity.","adopter_authorizer":"The imaging-core director, jointly authorized by the institution's designated access-governance and safety oversight bodies.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the specified allocation wedge is present, recovering otherwise stranded scanner sessions could reduce study delays and idle paid capacity without acquiring another scanner. The magnitude is unknown because no local prevalence, effect-size, or downstream scientific-value evidence is supplied."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Investigators facing delays, core managers facing idle capacity, and institutional funders have plausible incentives to improve scheduling, but the packet provides no demonstrated requests, commitments, dissatisfaction data, or evidence that affected stakeholders favor this particular redesign."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to fixed blocks, manual cancellation handling, and an informal waitlist, earlier release and compatibility-filtered rematching directly target late-unfilled and poorly matched capacity while preserving existing safety review. Advantage disappears if the audit instead finds genuine saturation, required setup time, or study-readiness failures."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is proposal-specific and testable, but waitlists, automatic release, transferable reservations, and priority scheduling are recognizable scheduling mechanisms. Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness beyond the stated baseline is weakly supported."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The intervention primarily requires booking-data analysis, eligibility rules, notifications, release logic, and workflow changes within one core; it does not require new imaging science or relaxed safety controls. Heterogeneous protocols, system integration, rapid setup, and gaming controls remain material implementation challenges."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies the imaging-core director and required institutional governance and safety oversight, bounds the pilot to approved compatible studies, excludes clinical capacity, and supplies expiry and rollback rules. Actual institutional approval and ownership of thresholds are not yet demonstrated."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"Booking, cancellation, readiness, compatibility, staffing, maintenance, utilization, waiting-time, and access records support a falsifiable audit and a bounded comparison. Readiness is reduced by unspecified thresholds and possible confounding from study mix, maintenance, staffing, and seasonality."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal retains ethics, consent, screening, protocol, and scanner-safety requirements; excludes clinical and emergency capacity; protects access floors; and provides suspension and automatic reversion. Benefit depends on operationally defining attribution, access, and staff-burden thresholds before any pilot."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The scheduling mechanism could transfer to other imaging cores with similar records and governance, but scanner compatibility, local booking systems, staffing, protected priorities, demand patterns, and setup constraints require site-specific diagnosis and calibration."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A retrospective one-core diagnostic audit comparing compatible unmet demand with idle, late-released, or lower-priority reserved capacity after accounting for maintenance, staffing, setup, approval, and study readiness.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing booking and operational records are accessible and sufficiently structured.","Work includes data extraction, compatibility classification, analyst and scheduler labor, governance consultation, and preregistration.","No new scanner instrumentation or prospective participant activity is required."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and configure a one-core rematching workflow, eligibility and protected-priority rules, release logic, notifications, audit logging, staff procedures, governance review, training, and evaluation design.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The existing scheduling system can be configured or integrated without wholesale replacement.","Institutional privacy, security, ethics, access-governance, and safety reviews are included.","Operational thresholds and decision owners must be established using local historical data.","The band excludes scanner purchase, major construction, and added scanner hours."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Run and evaluate the proposed eight-week, one-core controlled pilot, including monitoring, scheduler and technologist coverage, support, comparison-period analysis, equity and burden review, and rollback readiness.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only already approved, scanner-compatible research studies participate.","Safety and protocol checks remain unchanged.","Additional staffing may be needed to prevent rapid rematching from shifting uncompensated burden to core personnel.","The pilot uses existing scanner capacity and does not reallocate clinical or emergency slots."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing operation for one imaging core, including software support, scheduling administration, monitoring, rule review, governance reporting, access-equity audits, staff training, and periodic outcome evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Recurring scope is limited to one core using existing scanners.","Manual exception handling and periodic recalibration remain necessary.","Costs vary materially with scheduling-system integration, study volume, and monitoring requirements.","The estimate does not assume verified utilization savings or scientific returns."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed problem is recognizable and independently testable through booking, readiness, cancellation, compatibility, staffing, maintenance, setup, and utilization records, although its local presence and magnitude remain unconfirmed."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The imaging-core director is the operational adopter, with designated institutional access-governance and safety oversight explicitly required for authorization."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate claims that transferable reservations, earlier release, protected-priority ordering, and rapid compatibility-filtered rematching will outperform ordinary scheduling on utilization, fill time, completed sessions, or waiting time without unacceptable safety, quality, burden, or access effects."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A retrospective one-core audit can test the diagnosis before live deployment by comparing compatible unmet demand with capacity classified as avoidably versus necessarily unavailable and rejecting the diagnosis if material coexistence is absent."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet preserves all participant and protocol protections, excludes clinical capacity, identifies joint authority, and specifies suspension, review, expiry, and rollback. Local approval and threshold calibration remain prerequisites rather than an identified categorical stop."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The intervention is bounded to one existing imaging core, allowing broad resource-equivalent bands covering data work, software configuration, governance, staffing, monitoring, and evaluation, although integration details make confidence low."}},"blocking_evidence":["A local audit confirming material coexistence of compatible, protocol-ready unmet demand with avoidably idle, late-released, or lower-priority reserved scanner capacity.","Evidence that apparent idle time is not principally maintenance, safety-required setup, staffing limitation, or incompatible scan time.","Historical distributions sufficient to preregister protected-access floors, staff-burden limits, safety-attribution rules, and decision owners.","A credible comparison design addressing changes in study mix, scan type, readiness, staffing, maintenance, and seasonal demand.","Governance and safety approval for the eligibility, transfer, priority, monitoring, halt, and rollback rules before any live pilot."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a preregistered retrospective audit of one core over a fixed recent period, stratifying slots and waiting studies by scanner compatibility, approval, readiness, staffing, maintenance, setup, release timing, and protected-access category. Compare observed compatible unmet demand with both avoidably unused capacity and necessarily unavailable capacity; reject the diagnosis if no material coexistence remains after exclusions. Proceed to pilot design only if the predeclared coexistence threshold is met.","research_questions":["How much compatible, approved, protocol-ready demand coexists with avoidably idle, late-released, or lower-priority reserved capacity?","What share of apparent idle time is explained by maintenance, setup, staffing, participant constraints, or scanner incompatibility?","How quickly are cancellations currently refilled, and what incremental fill-time improvement remains available?","Which readiness and protected-priority rules can be measured reliably without encoding prestige, funding, or ability-to-pay bias?","What historical variability supports defensible safety, protected-access, staff-burden, and data-quality thresholds?","Would earlier release or transferability induce speculative booking, readiness misstatement, or disproportionate penalties for participant-driven cancellations?","Can an ordinary-scheduling comparator be matched or adjusted adequately for scan type, study mix, staffing, maintenance, readiness, and seasonality?","Do operational gains translate into more completed protocols or reduced abandonment without reducing quality or increasing participant and staff burden?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence, affected volume, effect size, stakeholder demand, and realized scientific benefit are unsupported in the sealed packet.","The diagnosis is conditional and must not be generalized to cores experiencing genuine aggregate scarcity, maintenance constraints, staffing shortages, or study-readiness failures.","Prior art and world novelty are unmeasured.","Recovered scan-hours and completed sessions are operational proxies, not established measures of scientific value.","Safety, access, burden, and attribution thresholds are conceptually named but not operationally validated.","Cost bands are planning-level resource equivalents and depend strongly on local data quality, scheduling-system integration, governance requirements, and staffing.","No live deployment is warranted until the retrospective diagnostic comparison and local approvals satisfy predeclared criteria."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, market availability, existing imaging-core implementations, comparative effectiveness, or realized impact of waitlists, automatic release, transferable reservations, or equity-aware scheduling."}