{"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__performing_arts_theatre","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"performing_arts_theatre","title":"Scarcity-weighted theatre slots with access credits","opportunity_summary":"Conditionally redesign theatre booking with bounded time-band differentials, smaller blocks, automatic releases, and access credits to shift flexible productions into genuinely usable slack capacity. The opportunity depends on first establishing that denied peak demand and substitutable off-peak vacancies coexist because of current terms rather than hard scheduling constraints, total undersupply, or poor vacancy discovery.","adopter_authorizer":"An authorized nonprofit or municipal theatre board or booking executive, subject to public, donor, contractual, labor, accessibility, and nondiscrimination obligations.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the diagnosed peak-demand and usable-slack pattern exists, the proposal could enable additional completed productions from fixed capacity while reducing denials; the magnitude and prevalence of that pattern are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Denied applicants and venue operators could value improved access and utilization, but the packet provides no expressed demand, adoption inquiry, or evidence that companies will accept alternative times, surcharges, credits, or smaller blocks."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The bundle addresses pricing and reservation behavior that a discovery-only clearinghouse would not, but it has no demonstrated advantage if vacancies are invisible, operationally unusable, or poorly matched rather than mispriced."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The theatre-specific composition is coherent, but bounded differential pricing, discounts, smaller booking blocks, releases, and access credits are recognizable mechanism types and prior art is explicitly unsearched."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"One venue can plausibly publish time bands, alter block rules, issue credits, record outcomes, and reverse the policy without new physical capacity; booking-system limitations and administrative workload remain unknown."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies a venue-level authorizer and preserves required protections, but municipal, donor, labor, contractual, accessibility, and nondiscrimination constraints may limit experimental pricing and randomization."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal names measurable baseline, incidence, utilization, denial, revenue, complaint, and safety outcomes plus separate problem and intervention falsifiers; sample size, data quality, follow-up length, and representative booking cycles are unresolved."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Access credits, bounded pricing, retained technical review, protected-group monitoring, explicit halt thresholds, compensation, and automatic reversion materially limit downside, although credit adequacy and stigma are untested."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The policy structure could be reused across multiple spaces, but scarcity bands, protected-access rules, staffing constraints, booking systems, and governance would require venue-specific configuration and monitoring."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded retrospective booking-data audit, constraint coding, applicant interviews, matched comparison of denied requests with apparently suitable vacant slots, and a decision memo; no booking terms are changed.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing booking, waitlist, cancellation, payment, staffing, and space-capability records are accessible.","The scope is one venue or studio and a limited historical period.","Applicant scheduling flexibility can be assessed through records and a modest number of interviews.","The work includes staff time, data cleaning, analysis, and basic governance review."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and prepare a reversible one-studio evaluation, including policy specification, booking-system configuration, access-credit administration, legal and stakeholder review, preregistration, staff training, monitoring, and follow-up evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing booking software can be configured rather than replaced.","No major collective-bargaining, procurement, or statutory process blocks the evaluation.","The evaluation includes enough follow-up to observe production completion or validated leading indicators.","The band includes internal labor and partner coordination as resource-equivalent costs."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Venue-wide operational introduction across several spaces and time bands, including system integration, communications, credit funding and administration, governance, monitoring, evaluation, and contingency capacity.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The venue is a single nonprofit or municipal operator rather than a multi-city network.","No construction or capacity expansion is required.","Multiple booking categories and protected-access programs require configuration and oversight.","Credit funding and transition support are included, but foregone artistic or community value cannot yet be monetized."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing booking administration, access-credit support, data monitoring, periodic band recalibration, stakeholder review, compliance checks, software support, and outcome evaluation for one venue.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Operations use an adapted existing booking platform.","The venue maintains several spaces or material booking volume.","Credits are bounded and targeted rather than an open-ended subsidy.","Recurring cost excludes major capital replacement and exceptional legal disputes."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines a recognizable and independently testable condition: denied or waitlisted suitable requests coexisting with idle comparable slots after accounting for capabilities and immovable constraints. It does not establish how often that condition occurs."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized venue board or booking executive is specifically identified, with adoption bounded by public, donor, contractual, labor, accessibility, and nondiscrimination obligations."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Relative to flat rates and first-come coarse blocks, the bundled policy claims to increase realized use or reduce denials without unacceptable access, safety, quality, complaint, or fiscal effects; the clearinghouse rival provides a meaningful alternative explanation."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A one-venue retrospective audit can compare denied requests capable of retiming with matched suitable vacancies and falsify the premise if coexistence disappears after operational constraints are applied, without changing live bookings."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"No intrinsic stop is identified because certified limits and protective reviews remain intact, pricing is bounded, willingness to pay is not the sole allocator, and explicit halt and rollback rules are provided; actual legal authorization still requires verification."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate supplies enough operational detail to bound separate evidence, setup, launch, and recurring scopes in broad resource-equivalent bands, although software, credit, compliance, and staffing needs remain uncertain."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether comparable denied peak requests persist alongside genuinely usable off-peak vacancies after staffing, transit, labor, school, audience, noise, technical, and production-lead constraints are applied.","Whether a material share of denied applicants could and would retime under changed terms rather than abandon, relocate, or require peak access.","Whether search or visibility failure, total undersupply, or protected allocation rules explain the observed pattern better than flat prices and coarse blocks.","Whether booking records can support credible matched comparisons and incidence analysis across applicant groups.","Whether the authorized venue can lawfully and contractually vary terms, randomize eligible weeks, and administer access credits.","Whether any utilization gain survives inclusion of administrative cost, fiscal effects, artistic quality, access incidence, complaints, gaming, cancellations, and safety outcomes.","Whether an eight-week booking window and feasible follow-up can capture representative production decisions and completions."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a time-bounded retrospective audit for one studio using existing records plus structured applicant interviews. Compare denied or waitlisted requests identified as capable of retiming with capability-matched vacant slots after coding staffing, labor, transit, audience, noise, technical, and lead-time constraints. Stop or redirect to discovery or capacity remedies if suitable slack does not coexist with flexible denied demand, if applicants identify no mutually beneficial blocked use, or if search failure explains the gap.","research_questions":["How many denied requests could use each observed vacant slot after all hard operational and coordination constraints are applied?","What proportion of apparent slack is genuinely substitutable rather than differentiated capacity?","Do applicants fail to use suitable slots because of price and allocation terms, poor discovery, scheduling coordination, artistic considerations, or total undersupply?","Which bundle components are operationally necessary, and can a staged or factorial design distinguish their contributions?","How should access credits be funded, claimed, and monitored to prevent stigma, underuse, and displacement of protected groups?","What sample size, assignment unit, booking horizon, and follow-up duration are required to measure completed productions rather than only reservations?","What contractual, labor, municipal, donor, accessibility, and nondiscrimination approvals would be required?","How sensitive are net benefits to administration costs, speculative bookings, shoulder-peak shifts, cancellations, attendance, and artistic-quality effects?","What existing theatre or cultural-space allocation practices resemble the proposed bundle, and what incremental claim remains after prior-art review?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment cannot establish problem prevalence, demand magnitude, realized impact, adoption interest, or market size.","The proposal is a hypothesis and provides no empirical venue data.","Temporal substitutability is the central unresolved causal premise.","The intervention is a bundle, so outcome changes would not identify component contributions without additional design.","Exact costs depend on venue scale, booking-system capability, credit funding, legal review, staff workload, and evaluation duration.","A short experiment may be unrepresentative and may not observe completed productions.","Protected-group incidence, artistic quality, and community value are only partially captured by utilization and revenue metrics."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched. No conclusion is made about novelty, prevalence, competing implementations, established effectiveness, intellectual property, or common theatre-industry practice; those questions require external research."}