{"schema_version":1,"assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","source_experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management","archetype_slug":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design","domain_slug":"organizational_management","title":"Coupled workload-debt mode for cross-functional delivery risk","opportunity_summary":"Test whether a reproducible coupled mode of workload, dependency waits, rework, and strain predicts cross-functional delivery collapse better than individual metrics, shocks, or a single-bottleneck model, and whether randomized protective controls move that mode without harming quality or worker groups.","adopter_authorizer":"A program sponsor and participating program leads, contingent on people-data governance, worker consultation, and independent safety review.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the stated hypotheses hold, earlier detection and protective control could improve commitment reliability while reducing unequal worker strain; realized effect and problem prevalence are not established."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Program leaders, workers, and customers are identifiable beneficiaries, but the packet contains no expressed demand, adoption inquiry, prevalence evidence, or commitment from participating programs."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal makes a comparative claim against individual-metric, shock, and bottleneck forecasting and requires at least 10% held-out predictive lift, but neither that lift nor intervention benefit has been observed."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is specifically defined, but prior art is unsearched and conventional panel identification plus workload or bottleneck control is an acknowledged close rival that may perform equally well."},"technical_implementability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Implementation requires consistent program-week measurements, at least 32 sufficiently independent programs, factorial assignment, adherence, controlled interference, stable regularized dynamics, and well-conditioned modes; feasibility is not demonstrated."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The decision authority and governance conditions are explicitly identified, but sponsor participation, worker consultation, data permission, independent review, and cross-program cooperation remain unsecured."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet supplies observable variables, comparators, quantitative validation thresholds, intervention and problem falsifiers, harm margins, and a preregistrable randomized design; measurement consistency and prospective power remain unresolved."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal targets coupled deterioration that may escape silo alarms and includes subgroup-strain monitoring, quality constraints, independent review, explicit halt criteria, rollback, and exclusions on personnel use."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Each additional portfolio would require compatible measurements, stable local dynamics, interference boundaries, governance, and repeated validation; the candidate supplies no evidence that modes or control effects transfer across organizations."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Design, governance, measurement harmonization, prospective power analysis, preregistration, coordination, monitoring, and analysis for the proposed factorial identification study across at least 32 programs and 24 stable weeks.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Programs already generate much of the required aggregate weekly data.","Resource-equivalent cost includes participating-worker and program-lead time.","People-data review, worker consultation, independent safety review, contamination monitoring, and statistical evaluation are included.","No major new enterprise data platform is required."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Prepare a validated locked policy for a bounded portfolio after successful identification, including workflow integration, training, governance controls, monitoring, rollback procedures, and a powered policy-comparison protocol.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The identification study passes all model, prediction, safety, and intervention gates.","Deployment remains aggregate and excludes individual personnel decisions.","Existing program-management systems can expose the required measures and assignments.","This band does not include the full operational policy comparison."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Conduct and evaluate the separately powered locked-policy comparison across an adequate set of programs, with adherence, contamination, delivery, quality, and disaggregated-strain monitoring.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Enough independently managed programs can participate.","The locked rule does not require major staffing or platform replacement.","Independent safety oversight and worker consultation continue throughout the comparison.","Service-harm and subgroup-harm rollback capacity is maintained."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Ongoing aggregate data operations, model validation and drift checks, governance, worker-group harm audits, adherence monitoring, independent review, retraining, and program support for one organizational portfolio.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Scale is limited to one moderate portfolio.","Measurements remain available through existing systems.","Local re-identification is required periodically but not a full new randomized trial every year.","No costs from service disruption or failed controls are included."]}},"research_burden":"VERY_HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"12_TO_36_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate states an observable delivery-collapse problem, affected objective, actors, ordinary-management baseline, measurable program-week indicators, and a direct held-out-program falsifier, although prevalence remains unknown."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"A program sponsor and participating leads are named as decision authorities, with people-data governance, worker consultation, and independent safety review as explicit conditions."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The mode must recur and achieve at least 10% held-out forecasting lift over individual-metric, shock, and bottleneck models; assigned controls must also move the modal coordinate in the predicted direction without specified harms."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized step specifies at least 32 independent programs, 24 stable weeks, factorial assignment against existing practice, blocking, shock controls, clustered uncertainty, adherence and contamination tracking, prospective power, validation gates, and falsifiers."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Excluded uses, harm monitoring, halt criteria, and rollback are explicit, but governance approval, worker consultation, independent review, valid aggregate-data handling, and authority over all participating programs have not been demonstrated."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The research and operational scopes can be bounded conceptually, but the packet supplies no staffing, data-system, program-count, compensation, compliance, or coordination inputs sufficient to validate even broad cost ranges confidently."}},"blocking_evidence":["No evidence yet shows that the coupled mode recurs or improves held-out collapse prediction by the required 10% over individual-metric, shock, and bottleneck models.","Cross-program measurement consistency, effective independence, prospective power, treatment adherence, and manageable contamination have not been demonstrated.","No randomized evidence shows that the protective controls move the risky modal coordinate in the predicted direction.","People-data governance approval, worker consultation, independent safety review, and participating-program authorization are not confirmed.","The separately powered locked-policy comparison has not shown improved modal and delivery outcomes without quality loss or harm to any preregistered worker group.","Prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness relative to organizational system identification, workload control, and delivery analytics is unresolved."],"next_evidence_step":"Subject to governance, worker consultation, independent safety review, and prospective power, preregister the specified factorial cluster-randomized identification study across at least 32 independently managed programs for 24 stable weeks, comparing assigned protective controls with existing practice; stop if the mode fails the locked stability gates, lacks 10% held-out lift over individual-metric, shock, and bottleneck models, or controls fail to move the modal coordinate safely in the predicted direction.","research_questions":["Can participating programs produce consistent aggregate weekly measures with sufficient effective observations and acceptable missingness?","Does a stable, well-conditioned coupled mode recur on blocked held-out programs after common shocks, reporting cadence, and single bottlenecks are modeled?","Does the modal forecast exceed individual-metric, shock, and bottleneck forecasts by the preregistered 10% threshold?","Do randomized intake caps, dependency-resolution hours, and protected quality capacity move the risky modal coordinate in the predicted directions with adequate adherence and limited interference?","Does any control displace work, reduce service or quality, or worsen strain for a preregistered team, role, or employment group?","If identification succeeds, does the locked policy improve modal and delivery outcomes in a separately powered comparison without crossing harm margins?","What prior organizational system-identification, delivery-analytics, or workload-control work contains materially equivalent compositions or claims?"],"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, and realized organizational impact are unsupported in the sealed packet.","Prior art and comparative distinctiveness are unmeasured.","Transferability of the mode and control effects across portfolios or organizations is unknown.","The required number of effectively independent programs may be unavailable because of shared teams or common management.","Measurement reactivity, reporting cadence, non-normal dynamics, regime changes, weak assignment effects, and structured residuals may invalidate the model.","All cost bands are low-confidence resource-equivalent estimates because organizational scale, existing data infrastructure, labor rates, and compliance requirements are unspecified.","The proposed study is not authorization for live operational deployment; all stated governance and safety conditions must be satisfied separately."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No prior-art conclusion is available. The candidate explicitly labels prior art as unsearched and makes no novelty claim; distinctiveness, prevalence, market size, and realized impact therefore remain outside this closed-book assessment."}