{"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__religious_studies_theology","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"religious_studies_theology","title":"Custodian-Governed, Risk-Tiered Access for Sacred Archives","opportunity_summary":"The candidate proposes distinguishing procedurally avoidable restrictions from substantive custodian refusals, then using custodian-defined risk tiers, consolidated intake, and parallel review for predesignated low-risk archive requests. It could enable more already-permissible scholarship while preserving sacredness, consent, privacy, rights, and community sovereignty, but the size of the procedural wedge, stakeholder demand, comparative benefit, and distinctiveness are unestablished hypotheses.","adopter_authorizer":"A participating archive or custodial institution could adopt the workflow, but designated community custodians must authorize treatment of community-governed materials; archive, privacy, ethics, intellectual-property, and legal authorities retain their respective approval mandates.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Avoiding unnecessary abandonment and delay could preserve scholarly and custodial value, while failures could cause serious sacredness, privacy, rights, or sovereignty harms. The candidate provides no evidence about how often avoidable restrictions occur or how much legitimate use is currently lost."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies researchers, archive staff, custodians, represented people, and scholarly audiences, but supplies no affirmative evidence that custodians or institutions recognize the procedural problem, want the proposed workflow, or would contribute governance labor."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Risk-tiered routing, consolidated intake, and parallel review directly differ from the existing collection-specific pathway and from the rival researcher-support service. Whether they outperform those alternatives depends on the unmeasured share of failures caused by procedural duplication rather than necessary consultation, incomplete applications, or scarce staff."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The combination is coherently adapted to sacred archives, including custodian control and rollback, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED. The packet cannot establish that risk-tiered review, consolidated intake, or parallel routing is uncommon or distinct from existing archive practices."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The intervention mainly requires workflow mapping, intake design, classification rules, parallel routing, monitoring, and reversion rather than speculative technology. Implementation remains dependent on secure records handling, consistent classification, adequate staffing, and coordination among several authorities."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate clearly assigns final authority to custodians and existing institutional mandates and prohibits researcher self-classification. Feasibility is mixed because actual custodian agreement is absent, authority may be fragmented, and any participating community may properly refuse or withdraw."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet defines an ordinary-practice baseline, a credible rival, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, measurable timing and permissible-use outcomes, and a safe retrospective audit before release. Risk adjustment, completeness criteria, equity measures, and acceptable effect thresholds still require co-design."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal excludes high-risk and disputed materials, preserves substantive restrictions, requires explicit agreement, and specifies suspension, takedown, revocation, and reversion triggers. These safeguards materially limit exposure, although disclosure or desacralization could be irreversible and rollback cannot fully undo such harm."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Reusable elements include intake, monitoring, and review-routing templates, but sacred knowledge can be relational, collection-specific, and nontransferable. Each custodian must define exclusions, risk tiers, conditions, compensation, and thresholds, limiting standardization and making local governance labor a likely scaling constraint."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A retrospective, non-release audit at one participating institution, including custodian compensation, secure request-record review, pathway mapping, risk and completeness coding, baseline comparison, and a decision memorandum.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One institution and a modest pre-specified sample of closed requests are included.","Existing request records are sufficiently complete and legally available for authorized review.","No new materials are released and no production intake system is built.","Community and institutional participants are compensated for material review and governance time."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Co-design and configuration of a time-limited, single-institution pilot for predesignated low-risk materials and uses, including governance agreements, classification rules, consolidated intake, routing, staff training, secure data handling, complaint procedures, and evaluation design.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The institution can adapt existing case-management or archive systems rather than procure a major custom platform.","High-risk and legally disputed materials remain excluded.","Custodian, privacy, ethics, intellectual-property, and legal reviews can be coordinated without establishing a new permanent organization.","The band includes compensated community governance labor."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operation and evaluation of the bounded pilot, including request triage, parallel reviews, applicant support, outcome and equity monitoring, complaint handling, independent analysis, and capacity reserved for suspension or reversion.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is limited to one institution, a small number of participating custodians, and predesignated low-risk categories.","Request volume remains capped to prevent rebound congestion.","Existing staff and systems provide part of the operational capacity.","No collection-wide or permanent rollout is included."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Annual resource-equivalent cost for a continuing single-institution program, covering custodian compensation, intake and review staff, governance meetings, secure system maintenance, monitoring, complaints, audits, training, and rule updates.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Scope remains limited to low-risk categories at one institution.","Request volume and the number of participating communities remain moderate.","Substantive legal, privacy, sacredness, and intellectual-property reviews continue under existing authorities.","Material expansion across collections or institutions would require a new estimate."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet describes observable delay, repeated review, abandonment, and unused materials, but explicitly labels avoidable nonuse and prevalence as hypotheses requiring local measurement."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Archives or custodial institutions are identifiable adopters, while designated community custodians and existing archive, privacy, ethics, intellectual-property, and legal authorities are explicitly identified as authorizers within their mandates."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate claims that custodian-defined risk tiers, consolidated intake, and parallel review will improve completion time or permissible-use rates relative to the existing pathway without exceeding thresholds for breaches, complaints, inequity, classification error, or custodian burden."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized first step is an explicitly agreed retrospective audit of closed requests with no new release, followed only conditionally by co-design of a time-limited pilot restricted to predesignated low-risk materials and uses."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The governance design preserves custodian authority and supplies exclusions and rollback, but no actual custodian agreement or institutional authorization is present, and irreversible disclosure or desacralization risks require local review before any live pilot."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate bounds a pilot conceptually but does not specify institution count, request volume, participating communities, record quality, staffing, systems, compensation, or compliance demands; these variables could materially change the resource band."}},"blocking_evidence":["Local evidence that a meaningful share of delayed, abandoned, or denied otherwise-permissible requests is attributable to duplicate, coarse, unclear, or open-ended procedure after accounting for risk and application completeness.","Affirmative custodian recognition of the procedural wedge and willingness to govern a bounded study with compensated labor, withdrawal rights, and preserved refusal authority.","Evidence distinguishing the proposed mechanism from the rival explanation that discovery problems, weak relationships, inadequate applications, unresolved ownership, necessary consultation, or staff scarcity cause most failures.","Feasible local definitions of low-risk materials and uses, classification-error limits, harm and complaint thresholds, equity measures, workload caps, and reversion procedures.","Prior-art research sufficient to determine whether the proposed workflow is meaningfully distinct from existing archive and community-governed access practices."],"next_evidence_step":"With explicit custodian and institutional authorization, conduct a retrospective audit of a pre-specified sample of closed requests from one institution and a fixed recent period, without releasing any material. Compare risk- and completeness-adjusted decision time, repeated-review burden, abandonment, and permissible-use outcomes for requests exposed versus not exposed to duplicate, coarse, unclear, or open-ended routing; also code rival explanations such as necessary consultation, ownership uncertainty, inadequate applications, and staff scarcity. Stop before pilot design if no meaningful attributable procedural share is found or if safe classification and burden measurement are infeasible.","research_questions":["What share of low-risk, otherwise-complete requests experiences avoidable delay, abandonment, or denial because of procedural design rather than substantive custodian refusal or necessary review?","Do custodians and represented communities recognize the proposed distinction between substantive protection and avoidable procedure, and under what governance, compensation, and withdrawal conditions?","Can low-risk materials and uses be classified with acceptably low error without inviting strategic classification or institutional override?","Would consolidated intake and parallel review improve outcomes compared with ordinary practice and with researcher-support services that leave approval rules unchanged?","How would the workflow affect custodian labor, archive workload, request rebound, applicant equity, complaints, breaches, and access revocation?","Which components already exist in comparable practices, and what incremental claim, if any, remains after prior-art research?","What institution-specific staffing, systems, compliance, data-access, and coordination requirements determine pilot and recurring cost?","Which harms could not be remedied by suspension, takedown, revocation, or reversion, and should therefore remain outside any pilot?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["This is a closed-book assessment with no external validation of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, prior art, market size, realized effects, or exact costs.","The candidate is a hypothesis and does not establish that procedural restrictions, rather than legitimate consultation, ownership uncertainty, incomplete applications, or scarce capacity, cause a meaningful share of nonuse.","Sacred and community-governed refusal cannot be treated as inefficiency, and aggregate scholarly benefit does not create an entitlement to access.","Authority, risk definitions, acceptable burdens, and harm thresholds are necessarily local; findings may not transfer across communities, collections, or institutions.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on a bounded single-institution scope, not quotes or observed expenditures."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that the problem, risk-tiering, consolidated intake, parallel review, custodian-governance model, monitoring design, or their combination is novel, rare, prevalent, or absent from current practice; distinctiveness requires external research."}