{"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__physics","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"physics","title":"Protected Dynamic Reallocation of Vacated Shared-Instrument Slots","opportunity_summary":"Evaluate whether a shared physics facility can recover technically usable instrument time lost after cancellations or readiness failures by requiring timely release and transparently reallocating only vacated slots to prequalified, short-notice-ready experiments, without weakening safety, merit, or protected-access rules. The recoverable capacity-demand overlap is explicitly hypothetical and must be measured before a pilot.","adopter_authorizer":"The facility body authorized to govern instrument-time awards, with safety officers retaining independent veto authority over experiment readiness.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If rule-blocked usable vacancies materially overlap with qualified ready demand, the proposal could convert perishable instrument-hours into completed measurements and reduce delays. The magnitude is unmeasured, so very favorable impact is not established."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Facility management, instrument scientists, blocked teams, funders, and protected-access groups have identifiable interests in utilization or access, but the packet provides no observed demand, complaints, commitments, or adopter endorsement."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the named cancellation waitlist or informal staff matching baseline, the proposal adds timely-release rules, explicit reassignment authority, prequalification, transparent priorities, incidence monitoring, and rollback. Its realized advantage remains conditional on a material avoidable vacancy wedge."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combination of protected reassignment, advance readiness qualification, and distributional safeguards is coherent and testable, but prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness cannot be established closed-book."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A one-line process using existing allocation, safety, and scheduling functions appears implementable because it is restricted to vacated slots and pre-cleared experiments. Experiment nonfungibility, changeovers, staffing, and scheduling-system changes prevent a top score."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies the governing facility body, preserves the safety officer's veto, limits the intervention to existing vacancies, and supplies rollback authority. Actual governance consent and compatibility with award commitments remain unverified."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"Slot histories, cancellation causes, technical usability, readiness status, completed experiment-hours, workload, and access incidence provide measurable outcomes, and the packet supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers. Data quality and readiness classification reliability are unknown."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The design preserves independent safety review and protected-access shares, excludes revocation of active awards, limits initial scope, and specifies suspension and rollback triggers. It cannot eliminate risks from rushed preparation, gaming, workload, or unequal mobilization capacity."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The governance pattern could transfer to other shared instruments, but setup, duration, safety, staffing, peer-review commitments, and protected-access rules are facility- and instrument-specific, requiring local validation rather than straightforward replication."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One prospective proposal-cycle operational audit on one instrument line, including slot-history reconciliation, vacancy-cause classification, ready-demand measurement, baseline substitution analysis, access-incidence checks, and a decision report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Relevant scheduling, cancellation, readiness, safety, and experiment-completion records are accessible.","The audit is observational and does not reassign slots.","Existing facility personnel can supply operational context without extensive new data infrastructure."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and authorization of the one-line reassignment process, including release rules, eligibility and priority definitions, governance review, scheduling-system configuration, staff training, communications, monitoring design, and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The facility can modify its scheduling workflow without replacing core systems.","No major contractual or regulatory proceeding is required.","Safety qualification remains within existing review processes."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Run and evaluate a one-cycle pilot on one compatible instrument line, including readiness-pool administration, vacancy matching, staff coordination, changeover support, outcome tracking, access-incidence review, and independent safety oversight.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only already-vacated slots and pre-cleared experiments are included.","The readiness pool is limited enough for existing staff plus modest incremental support.","No specialized equipment acquisition or major facility shutdown is required."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing operation on one instrument line, covering readiness verification, rapid scheduling coordination, monitoring, periodic governance review, software maintenance, staff workload, and evaluation of safety and distributional thresholds.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Scope remains limited to one instrument line.","Coordination can be handled with a fractional or small dedicated staffing allocation.","Unexpected changeover and after-hours support demands are not routinely high."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet defines an operationally recognizable and auditable coexistence of usable vacancies and blocked qualified demand, but labels it a hypothesis and supplies no observed facility evidence that the overlap exists materially."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized decision-maker is specifically identified as the facility body governing instrument-time awards, with safety officers retaining an independent veto."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that timely release plus authorized, priority-based reassignment to prequalified teams will increase completed usable experiment-hours relative to ad hoc cancellation handling or a simple waitlist, subject to harm thresholds."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A safe observational audit can be bounded to one instrument line and one proposal cycle and can compare usable vacancies, ready demand, and current substitution performance before any reassignment pilot."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet preserves all substantive safety reviews and protected allocations, grants safety officers veto power, excludes revocation of active awards, and specifies suspension and rollback. No sealed-candidate stop is identified, although local approval remains necessary."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The one-instrument-line audit, startup, pilot, and recurring operations are sufficiently bounded to assign broad resource-equivalent bands, subject to explicit uncertainty about systems, staffing, governance, and changeovers."}},"blocking_evidence":["Measured evidence that technically usable vacant hours materially overlap with qualified, short-notice-ready demand blocked specifically by allocation rules.","Evidence that existing informal substitution or waitlist practices do not already fill substantially all usable cancellations.","Operational estimates of changeover time, staffing availability, readiness-pool depth, and the share of vacancies long enough to complete useful experiments.","Baseline and prospective evidence on safety events, staff burden, schedule disruption, gaming, and access incidence for protected or resource-constrained users.","Confirmation that facility governance can authorize reassignment of vacated awards without violating binding peer-review, funder, contractual, or protected-access commitments."],"next_evidence_step":"Before any live reassignment, conduct a prospective observational audit on one compatible instrument line for one complete proposal cycle. Compare nominally vacant hours with technically usable vacant hours, current-baseline substituted hours, and contemporaneous qualified ready demand that was blocked specifically by allocation rules. Do not proceed to a pilot if there is no material overlap after accounting for maintenance, setup, changeover, safety, sample readiness, and staffing, or if existing practice already fills essentially all usable vacancies.","research_questions":["How many canceled or failed-readiness hours remain technically usable after maintenance, setup, changeover, staffing, and safety constraints are applied?","How often does qualified, pre-cleared demand exist for the same instrument configuration and usable time window?","What proportion of usable vacancies is already recovered through informal staff matching or existing waitlists?","Which readiness and priority criteria can be verified consistently without favoring nearby or well-resourced teams?","What additional staff workload and changeover burden would rapid reassignment create?","Would reassignment conflict with award terms, peer-review commitments, funder conditions, or protected-access rules?","What predefined utilization, safety, disruption, gaming, workload, and access-incidence thresholds should govern pilot authorization and rollback?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem existence and magnitude are hypotheses; no facility observations are supplied.","Stakeholder demand and authorizer willingness are not evidenced.","Prior art, prevalence, and distinctiveness are unmeasured closed-book.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent estimates based only on the bounded scope, not facility-specific pricing or staffing data.","Instrument-slot fungibility, readiness-pool depth, changeover losses, and data quality are unknown.","Potential distributional effects on protected and resource-constrained users are unresolved.","The earliest horizon assumes one proposal cycle can be observed and governance review can occur within 3 to 12 months."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that dynamic cancellation release, readiness pools, protected-access priorities, or related scheduling mechanisms are novel, uncommon, or absent from shared physics facilities."}