{"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__sport_science","archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"sport_science","title":"Protected Dynamic Reallocation of Shared Sport-Science Laboratory Slots","opportunity_summary":"Test whether timed release of unused reservations and constraint-aware matching can reduce qualified-request delays and unused compatible slot-hours at one shared sport-science laboratory without weakening safety, protocol validity, workload limits, consent, protected access, or research governance. The local existence and materiality of the proposed allocation wedge remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"The facility director is the operational adopter, conditional on applicable approval from safety officers, research-governance bodies, labor or workload authorities, and institutional access-policy authorities.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Timelier testing, rehabilitation monitoring, training feedback, and research observations could be valuable, but the sealed candidate provides no evidence that allocation-attributable stranded capacity is prevalent or materially consequential at a facility."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Athletes, coaches, researchers, technicians, and schedulers have plausible reasons to value reduced delays and fewer manual exceptions, but no stakeholder demand, willingness to adopt, or dissatisfaction with current arrangements is documented."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Timed release and qualified matching directly target fixed-quota lock-in and could outperform fixed quotas, first-come requests, or informal exceptions without adding capacity. The advantage disappears if apparent vacancies are incompatible or if total capacity is the binding constraint."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is specific and testable, but timed release, scheduling constraints, and matching are individually familiar mechanisms, and the candidate explicitly reports prior art as unsearched. Distinctiveness cannot be supported closed-book."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A one-facility audit, rules-based shadow allocation, and capped low-risk pilot are technically bounded and do not require new physical capacity. Implementability still depends on usable scheduling data, explicit compatibility rules, privacy controls, and integration with staffing and protocol constraints."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"A facility director is identifiable, and the candidate specifies relevant co-approvers. Feasibility is mixed because safety, research, workload, and institutional access approvals may each constrain or prevent reassignment."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate identifies observable records, an eight-to-twelve-week audit, a four-week shadow comparison, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, protected outcomes, and rollback conditions. Materiality thresholds and some operational definitions still require preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The design preserves supervision, protocol, consent, workload, rehabilitation, and protected-equity constraints; excludes priority sales and unauthorized data use; and specifies suspension and baseline reversion. Residual risks include overload, rushed setup, privacy leakage, and strategic reservations."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The rule structure could potentially transfer across shared facilities, but equipment compatibility, protocols, staffing, governance, protected priorities, and data systems are facility-specific. No evidence establishes repeatability beyond the proposed single-site test."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Eight-to-twelve-week retrospective audit at one facility plus a four-week shadow allocation, including data preparation, compatibility classification, analyst time, technician and governance review, outcome definitions, and comparative analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing reservation, request, staffing, and release records are accessible and sufficiently structured.","The shadow test uses existing software or a lightweight offline model rather than bespoke production infrastructure.","No live reassignment is included.","De-identification and group-level equity analysis do not require unusually extensive compliance remediation."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Preparation for a one-facility capped deployment, including scheduling-system configuration or integration, access controls, matching rules, alerting, training, privacy and governance review, preregistration, and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["An existing scheduling platform can be configured or integrated rather than replaced.","Compatibility and protected-priority rules can be encoded without custom scientific instrumentation.","The scope is limited to selected low-risk equipment and prequalified requests.","The band includes internal labor and partner coordination as resource-equivalent costs."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A four-week capped pilot on selected low-risk equipment, including active monitoring, scheduler and technician support, comparative evaluation against baseline, incident review, and a continuation decision.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The preceding audit and shadow test pass their preregistered gates.","Required approvals are obtained within normal institutional processes.","The pilot does not require added equipment, extended operating hours, or substantial new staffing.","Any safety event or protected-access deterioration triggers immediate suspension and baseline reversion."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One-facility recurring operation after successful evaluation, including software support, rule maintenance, scheduling oversight, privacy and access reviews, equity and workload monitoring, incident review, and periodic renewal decisions.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Operation remains limited to existing capacity and staffing envelopes.","Most matching is automated or incorporated into existing scheduler duties.","Facility-specific rule changes and governance reviews are periodic rather than continuous.","The candidate provides no evidence on software licensing, integration maintenance, or monitoring labor."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines a recognizable and externally testable condition: simultaneous unmet qualified demand and unused compatible capacity after accounting for maintenance, setup, staffing, recovery, protocol, and protected-priority constraints. Its actual local magnitude remains to be tested."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The facility director is explicitly identified as the scheduling authority, with safety, research-governance, labor or workload, and access-policy approvals specified where applicable."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The incremental claim is that timed release plus constraint-aware matching reduces qualified-request delay and unused compatible slot-hours relative to fixed quotas, first-come handling, or informal exceptions while preserving specified gates."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a bounded one-facility audit and four-week shadow allocation before any live reassignment, with an explicit comparison and problem falsifier."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The non-live audit and shadow test can proceed without relaxing safety or protocol limits, and the candidate identifies required authorities, exclusions, protected floors, halt triggers, and rollback. Passing those reviews is still required before a live pilot."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate bounds implementation to one facility and selected low-risk equipment but provides no information about data condition, scheduling-system integration, software licensing, compliance effort, staff availability, or approval burden sufficient to support a confident resource range."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether one facility has a material overlap between unmet qualified demand and genuinely unused compatible capacity attributable to allocation rules rather than maintenance, setup, staffing, recovery, protocol, or protected priorities.","Whether reservation, request, staffing, release, safety, protocol, workload, and group-level access records are complete enough for a valid baseline and shadow comparison.","Whether timed release and matching reduce qualified-request delay or unused compatible slot-hours without worsening safety, scientific validity, technician workload, privacy, predictable access, or protected-group access.","Preregistered compatibility definitions, materiality thresholds, protected-access floors, workload limits, incident attribution procedures, and continuation criteria.","Conditional approval feasibility across facility, safety, research-governance, labor or workload, and institutional access-policy authorities.","Overlap with existing facility-scheduling practices and prior art, which is explicitly unsearched."],"next_evidence_step":"Audit eight to twelve weeks of de-identified records from one facility, classify every nominally unused slot against maintenance, setup, staffing, recovery, protocol, and protected-priority constraints, and then run a four-week offline shadow allocation. Compare baseline scheduling with timed release plus constraint-aware matching on qualified-request delay, unused compatible slot-hours, workload, projected protocol conflicts, and group-level access. Falsify the opportunity if there is no material allocation-attributable overlap or if the shadow rule produces no improvement or breaches any preregistered gate; do not reassign live slots in this step.","research_questions":["How much unused slot time remains genuinely compatible after all legitimate operational, physiological, scientific, and protected-priority constraints are applied?","What share of qualified-request delay or rejection is attributable to fixed reservations and coarse eligibility rules rather than total capacity scarcity?","Which release timing and matching rules reduce delay and unused compatible capacity relative to baseline without inducing speculative reservations or strategic late release?","What preregistered limits adequately protect technician workload, setup quality, measurement comparability, privacy, rehabilitation access, and protected-group access?","Can the existing scheduling and data environment support auditable matching, access controls, monitoring, and rapid rollback at acceptable resource burden?","Do facility leaders, technicians, governance bodies, teams, and affected user groups consider the proposed reassignment legitimate and approvable?","How much does the mechanism overlap with existing scheduling practices or prior art, and would bespoke infrastructure add material incremental value?","If the audit shows capacity is persistently binding, would equipment, hours, or staffing expansion be more effective than reallocation?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment: no external evidence was used.","Problem prevalence, demand magnitude, effect size, market size, and realized impact are unmeasured.","Prior art and world novelty are unsearched and cannot support a distinctiveness claim.","Apparent calendar vacancy cannot be treated as usable capacity until compatibility and legitimate constraints are classified.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent scenarios, not observed prices, and depend heavily on existing data and scheduling infrastructure.","A successful shadow result would not establish live safety, equity, workload, or scientific-validity performance.","No live deployment is warranted until thresholds are preregistered and all required authorities approve."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet labels prior art as UNSEARCHED and novelty evidence as weak. This assessment therefore treats the proposal only as a testable mechanism composition and makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, competitive differentiation, or overlap with existing laboratory scheduling systems and institutional practices."}