{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__futurism_foresight","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"futurism_foresight","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"fixed_cycle_foresight_capacity_misallocation","causal_lever_id":"bounded_rolling_reallocation_of_foresight_capacity","proposal":{"problem":"Strategic-foresight teams may allocate scarce scenario, scanning, and facilitation capacity through fixed annual cycles, legacy project slots, or coarse eligibility rules. Urgent high-consequence questions then wait while lower-priority work retains capacity or capacity goes unused between cycles. The recognizable problem is avoidable misallocation within a genuinely limited foresight function, not simply insufficient staffing. Its prevalence and magnitude are HYPOTHESIS.","actors_substrate":["foresight team and facilitators","decision teams requesting foresight work","executive or governance sponsor","participants and experts contributing evidence","groups affected by decisions informed by foresight"],"observable_state":"Requests queue until the next planning cycle; legacy assignments persist despite changed priorities; urgent eligible questions are rejected or delayed; reserved workshop or analyst capacity is sometimes unused; requesters create duplicative unofficial analyses. These manifestations are HYPOTHESIS.","consequence":"Time-sensitive decisions receive late or no structured anticipation, while scarce analytical capacity remains attached to lower-current-value assignments; informal workarounds can also evade quality and participation safeguards.","affected_objective":"Increase timely, decision-relevant use of bounded foresight capacity without weakening methodological quality, plural participation, confidentiality, or legitimate priority-setting.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"value-blocking wedge","domain_realization":"Fixed-cycle intake, non-transferable legacy slots, and coarse eligibility or priority rules separate decision demand from available foresight capacity.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"blocked beneficial activity","domain_realization":"Mutually useful pairing of foresight expertise with time-sensitive strategic questions fails even when a bounded service slot could be reassigned.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"protected purpose","domain_realization":"Capacity limits, methodological review, plural participation, confidentiality, and governance control protect analysis quality and legitimacy.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"less-distortive repair","domain_realization":"A transparent rolling triage window reallocates a bounded share of capacity while retaining the total cap and substantive safeguards.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"incidence and adaptive monitoring","domain_realization":"Track which requesters gain or lose access, displaced work, quality, participant burden, gaming, and downstream decision use.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Distortion Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Trace each blocked or delayed request to fixed-cycle, eligibility, priority, or non-transferability rules rather than raw scarcity."},{"component":"Protected Constraint Safeguard","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Keep capacity caps, quality review, confidentiality, plural participation, and conflict-of-interest controls unchanged."},{"component":"Surplus Estimate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Estimate avoided decision delay, recovered analyst time, and value of timely options as ranges, without monetizing all future consequences."},{"component":"Affected-Party Incidence Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record access gains, displaced projects, participation burdens, and indirectly affected decision constituencies."},{"component":"Redesign Lever","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reserve a bounded share of capacity for rolling, rubric-based reallocation and release unused legacy slots."},{"component":"Distributional Review","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Test whether urgent or executive-sponsored requests crowd out less powerful, long-horizon, or minority perspectives."},{"component":"Behavioral Response Model","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Anticipate urgency inflation, request splitting, sponsor gaming, analyst overload, and migration to unofficial work."},{"component":"Implementation Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Limit the test to one team, one quarter, and at most 20% of its planned capacity."},{"component":"Monitoring and Rebound Check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Monitor queue time, idle capacity, displacement, quality exceptions, participant diversity, gaming, and repeat demand."},{"component":"Rollback or Adjustment Rule","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Restore prior allocations if safeguards fail; otherwise adjust the reserve share or triage rubric."},{"component":"Cost–Benefit Assessment Frame","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Compare timeliness and capacity use against transition cost, displaced analysis, quality risk, and legitimacy effects."},{"component":"Price-Wedge Diagnostic","status":"incompatible","domain_realization":"No monetary access price is proposed; test and reject price causation."},{"component":"Friction Source Breakdown","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate allocation-rule delay from intake effort, substantive review time, expert scarcity, and facilitation scarcity."},{"component":"Compensating Adjustment Plan","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Give displaced projects notice, appeal, rescheduling priority, or a reduced-scope deliverable."},{"component":"Legitimacy and Authority Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Confirm who may reprioritize commissioned work and whose representation cannot be bypassed."},{"component":"Sensitivity Analysis","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Vary assumed urgency, decision impact, displacement cost, reserve share, and attribution of idle time."},{"component":"Pilot or Sunset Path","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Run one-quarter pilot that automatically expires unless reviewed and renewed."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"congestion_or_capacity_pricing_adjustment","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Charging for foresight access would privilege budget holders and confuse legitimate prioritization with willingness to pay.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal does not change the proposed chain."},{"slug":"cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use bounded ranges and nonmonetary legitimacy and quality criteria.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot could run, but its net-value verdict would be less disciplined."},{"slug":"distortion_reduction_review","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Diagnose allocation loss separately from true expert scarcity and protected review.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, the intervention could mislabel necessary scarcity or scrutiny as waste."},{"slug":"impact_assessment_table","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Rows cover requesters, displaced projects, participants, analysts, and affected constituencies.","counterfactual_removal":"Distributional harm and safeguard triggers become materially harder to review."},{"slug":"matching_improvement_program","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"The conjectured binding failure is assignment by rule, not inability to discover compatible experts or requesters.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal does not alter the allocation redesign."},{"slug":"permit_or_approval_streamlining","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Substantive approval time is measured but not presumed to be the binding wedge.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal preserves the causal claim focused on capacity assignment."},{"slug":"price_control_redesign","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"There is no administered monetary price or compensating price protection.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal has no effect."},{"slug":"quota_or_allocation_rule_review","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Retain the total capacity cap while revising how slots are assigned and released.","counterfactual_removal":"The proposed causal lever disappears."},{"slug":"regulatory_simplification_pilot","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Adapt the walled-off, monitored, expiring pilot structure to internal foresight governance.","counterfactual_removal":"Evidence would require a riskier permanent or system-wide change."},{"slug":"sunset_clause_review","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Expire the pilot and require legacy slot rules to be periodically re-justified.","counterfactual_removal":"The test remains possible, but inertia could make experimental rules or stale allocations persist."},{"slug":"tariff_fee_or_toll_redesign","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No authority-imposed charge is the conjectured wedge.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal has no effect."}],"causal_chain":["Fixed-cycle and non-transferable allocation rules preserve assignments despite changing decision needs.","A rolling window releases unused slots and exposes a bounded reserve to transparent triage.","Eligible urgent questions gain access without increasing the capacity cap or removing substantive review.","Queue delay and idle capacity should fall if allocation, rather than raw scarcity, was binding.","Incidence, quality, diversity, gaming, and displacement monitoring determines whether recovered value is legitimate."],"baseline":"Annual or quarterly first-come, sponsor-negotiated, or legacy-slot allocation, with exceptions handled informally and unused slots not systematically released.","nearest_rival":"Add analysts, facilitators, or external contractors to expand total foresight capacity; this is superior if genuine undersupply rather than allocation rules causes the queue.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["requesting decision teams","displaced project owners","foresight staff","experts and workshop participants","constituencies affected by foresight-informed decisions"],"decision_authority":"The foresight portfolio owner may authorize a pilot only with the governance sponsor empowered to reprioritize commissioned work and the body responsible for participation and methodological safeguards.","authorized_first_step":"Audit one prior planning cycle, then pilot a 20% rolling reserve for one team for one quarter using published eligibility, scoring, appeal, and rescheduling rules.","excluded_actions":["removing methodological or ethics review","exceeding the existing workload cap","selling access or prioritizing ability to pay","cancelling protected or legally required work","using forecast certainty as the sole priority criterion"],"halt_rollback":"Immediately stop new reallocations and restore the prior rule if quality or confidentiality safeguards are breached, protected participation is bypassed, analyst workload exceeds its cap, or predeclared displacement or gaming thresholds are crossed; otherwise sunset after one quarter pending review."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The apparent idle time may be necessary slack for surprise work, and queues may reflect genuinely scarce expertise, facilitation, data, or inclusive deliberation rather than a stale allocation rule.","analogy_break":"Foresight outputs lack observable market prices and their value is plural, delayed, and politically contested; routing capacity to apparent highest-value demand can suppress weak voices and long-horizon issues.","failure_condition":"The pilot fails if faster access is achieved mainly by displacing higher-value protected work, degrading quality or diversity, overloading analysts, or rewarding urgency gaming.","problem_falsifier":"Audit evidence shows that delays and rejected requests are explained predominantly by fully utilized scarce expertise, required deliberation, or lack of qualified demand, with no material idle or misallocated capacity attributable to assignment rules.","intervention_falsifier":"Conditional on a verified allocation wedge, the bounded rolling reserve does not reduce median eligible-request delay or recover usable capacity relative to baseline, or its displacement, quality, equity, or gaming harms exceed the predeclared benefit range.","risks":["executive sponsors capture the rolling reserve","requesters exaggerate urgency","long-horizon and marginalized perspectives lose access","measured speed substitutes for foresight quality","staff workload rises despite a nominal cap","confidential priorities become visible through triage"]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"TESTABLE_CONJECTURE","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","evidence_maturity":"HYPOTHESIS"},"revision_change_log":{"revision_kind":"ORIGINAL","prior_problem_id":null,"prior_causal_lever_id":null,"problem_changed":false,"causal_lever_changed":false,"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"repairs_addressed":[]},"confidence":0.77,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. Empirical prevalence, causal magnitude, and threshold values are hypotheses; no novelty claim is made."}