{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics","arm":"PROPOSAL_FIRST","candidate_id":"PF-ASTRO-DWL-001","hypothesis_id":null,"version":0,"title":"Conditional Return and Reallocation of Stranded Telescope Time","problem":"A telescope may award fixed observing blocks to approved programs months in advance and restrict reassignment after an award. If a program later becomes infeasible because its target, required sky conditions, or timing window no longer matches the allocated block, the assignment rule can leave the block idle or devoted to a low-value substitute even though other scientifically reviewed programs could use it. The total observing-time cap protects scarce capacity, operational safety, calibration integrity, scientific merit, and equitable access; the candidate targets only the avoidable loss caused by binding a usable block to an infeasible program.","actors":["principal investigators holding observing-time awards","investigators with pre-reviewed backup programs","time-domain astronomers seeking observations within short-lived event windows","telescope operators and schedulers","time-allocation committee members","under-resourced or infrequent users whose access depends on procedural fairness","archive users and the broader scientific community"],"observable_state":"During an awarded block, the scheduled program cannot satisfy declared target-visibility or observing-condition requirements, while the telescope is technically available and at least one pre-approved, execution-ready program is feasible; nevertheless, the block cannot be reassigned promptly and is recorded as idle time, discretionary filler, or an observation outside the original program's useful conditions.","consequence":"When this state occurs, finite telescope capacity can produce less scientifically usable data than the same safe operating time could have produced, prepared programs remain unexecuted, and transient phenomena may pass beyond observability without any offsetting gain to the protective purposes of the allocation process.","affected_objective":"Maximize scientifically usable and merit-reviewed observations per safe telescope hour while preserving equitable access, operational constraints, calibration quality, and legitimate time-allocation authority.","intervention":"Run a one-semester pilot in which award holders may conditionally return an unusable block to an observatory-managed clearing pool without losing the scientific credit associated with responsible release. The scheduler may reassign only the returned block, only to execution-ready programs already approved through scientific and technical review, and only under published priority rules incorporating feasibility, original merit tier, time criticality, cumulative access, and operational transition cost. The pilot does not increase the observing-time cap, bypass safety or technical checks, sell priority, or revoke feasible awarded time. Every reassignment is logged, reviewed for incidence, and subject to automatic sunset and rollback thresholds.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Value-blocking wedge","domain_realization":"A fixed program-to-block assignment remains binding after the awarded program becomes infeasible, preventing feasible reviewed programs from using otherwise operable telescope time."},{"archetype_element":"Foregone beneficial activity","domain_realization":"An execution-ready, scientifically approved observation is not performed even though the instrument, staff, conditions, and time are compatible."},{"archetype_element":"Protected purpose","domain_realization":"Scientific-merit review, equitable access, technical feasibility, operator safety, calibration integrity, proprietary-data commitments, and the legitimate total capacity limit."},{"archetype_element":"Redesign lever","domain_realization":"A conditional return pool with rule-governed reassignment among pre-approved programs, leaving the capacity cap and substantive reviews intact."},{"archetype_element":"Incidence review","domain_realization":"Track returned hours, substitute hours, scientific priority, institution and career-stage access, repeated gains or losses, transition burden, and operator workload by affected group."},{"archetype_element":"Implementation boundary","domain_realization":"One telescope, one semester, designated instruments and weather-contingent blocks, with no involuntary withdrawal of feasible awards."},{"archetype_element":"Monitoring and rollback","domain_realization":"Compare usable-data completion, safety and quality exceptions, fairness concentration, gaming indicators, and scheduling burden against the existing process; sunset the pilot unless authorized for renewal."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"distortion_reduction_review","role":"Separate loss caused by the inflexible assignment from legitimate scarcity, scientific review, safety checks, and unavoidable weather loss; count only blocks for which a feasible reviewed substitute existed.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this review, genuine telescope scarcity or necessary technical constraints could be mislabeled as avoidable distortion."},{"mechanism_slug":"quota_or_allocation_rule_review","role":"Keep the total observing-time cap intact while testing whether conditional return and governed reassignment improve allocation within that cap.","counterfactual_removal":"Without separating the cap from its assignment rule, the proposal would collapse into an unsupported request for more capacity or unauthorized revocation of awards."},{"mechanism_slug":"impact_assessment_table","role":"Record gains, losses, protected interests, and monitoring triggers for award holders, backup-program investigators, operators, and groups vulnerable to access concentration.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an incidence register, aggregate utilization could improve while burdens, repeated displacement, or unequal access remain hidden."},{"mechanism_slug":"cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","role":"Compare recovered usable observations with operator workload, transition overhead, data-quality risk, distributional effects, and uncertainty under alternative valuation assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a two-sided and sensitivity-tested assessment, additional scheduled activity could be mistaken for net scientific value."},{"mechanism_slug":"regulatory_simplification_pilot","role":"Confine the alternative assignment rule to a reversible, instrumented semester with explicit eligibility, expiry, and renewal criteria.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded pilot and sunset, an uncertain scheduling redesign could become system-wide before its safety, fairness, or workload effects are known."}],"causal_chain":["A fixed award binds a specific program to a future observing block.","The program becomes infeasible for that block because declared visibility, timing, or condition requirements are not met.","The telescope remains operable and another pre-reviewed, execution-ready program is feasible.","The existing reassignment restriction prevents the feasible substitute from using the block.","The conditional return pool removes only this assignment wedge while retaining the capacity cap and substantive protections.","Published priority rules route the released block to an eligible program after operational checks.","The telescope can produce a scientifically usable observation instead of idling or executing an unsuitable substitute.","Logging, incidence review, and sunset criteria reveal whether recovered use is offset by quality loss, unfair concentration, gaming, or excessive operational burden."],"baseline":"The ordinary baseline is advance allocation of fixed blocks to approved programs, supplemented by operator discretion or informal filler observations when the assigned program cannot run; reassignment authority, eligibility, and credit for returned time may be limited or unclear.","nearest_rivals":["A fully dynamic queue scheduler is the strongest rival: it continuously matches feasible programs to conditions and may solve the same stranded-time state without creating a separate return pool.","A matching-improvement program could expose compatible programs and slots more effectively if the binding problem is information siloing rather than an allocation restriction.","Additional telescope capacity or remote observing support would address true undersupply or staffing limits, but would not directly repair an inflexible assignment rule.","Broader target-of-opportunity authority could serve transient observations, but may not address ordinary condition-driven infeasibility and could weaken fairness if priority is insufficiently governed."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate is warranted only if usable blocks are being stranded specifically because an assignment remains binding after infeasibility is known, despite an observable feasible substitute. If the baseline scheduler already has and exercises equivalent reassignment authority, or if no eligible substitute exists, the proposed return pool adds no distinct structural repair.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The observatory director or scheduling authority may authorize the bounded pilot only with approval from the body governing time allocation and operating policy; telescope operators retain final authority over real-time safety and technical feasibility.","authorized_first_step":"Authorize a retrospective shadow simulation using historical schedule and condition records, without changing any past award, current observation, proprietary right, or investigator priority.","excluded_actions":["increasing or relaxing the total observing-time cap","bypassing scientific-merit, technical-feasibility, safety, calibration, or instrument-protection checks","selling observing priority or using investigators' ability to pay as a ranking criterion","involuntarily withdrawing a block while its awarded program remains feasible under its declared requirements","altering proprietary periods or data ownership without separate authority and consent","deploying the rule across other telescopes or semesters without a new decision"],"halt_rollback":"During a live pilot, immediately suspend reassignment for the affected instrument if a reassigned observation causes a safety or instrument-protection exception, materially disrupts required calibration, exceeds a predeclared operator-workload ceiling, or produces a predeclared concentration of substitute time inconsistent with access safeguards. Restore the ordinary assignment process; the pilot expires automatically at semester end unless affirmatively renewed."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A shadow comparison shows that apparently stranded blocks were predominantly caused by weather, hardware state, calibration obligations, staffing limits, slew overhead, or lack of an execution-ready substitute, or that the existing scheduler already reassigned such blocks whenever doing so was feasible.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified if no sampled block simultaneously satisfies all four conditions: assigned program infeasible, telescope operable, pre-approved substitute feasible, and reassignment blocked by the allocation rule.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if, among qualifying shadow cases, the governed return pool does not increase completed requirement-conforming observations after accounting for transition overhead, or if any apparent gain depends on weakening scientific review, safety, data quality, or equitable-access constraints.","risks":["Investigators may overstate infeasibility to preserve credit while releasing inconvenient blocks.","Programs with larger teams or better-prepared observation files may capture disproportionate substitute time.","Frequent target switching may add slew, setup, calibration, cognitive, or fatigue burdens that erase recovered value.","A priority formula may privilege easily measured short-term output over scientifically important but less flexible programs.","Conditional returns may undermine planning confidence or create strategic withholding if future allocation consequences are unclear.","Filler observations may generate data volume without scientifically usable results, producing a false utilization gain.","Target-of-opportunity claims may crowd out ordinary programs unless time-critical eligibility is narrowly governed."]},"next_evidence_step":"For one completed semester on one telescope, draw a bounded sample of up to 30 blocks recorded as idle, filler, or requirement-mismatched. Using only contemporaneous schedules, weather and instrument states, declared program requirements, and the set of proposals already approved at that time, conduct a blinded shadow reassignment. Classify whether each block met the four-part problem test, identify the substitute selected by the proposed rule, estimate transition overhead, and tabulate effects by merit tier, institution type, career stage where available, and operator workload. Do not alter observations or contact investigators during this first step.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":["Initial proposal; prior art is unsearched, and no novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect-size claim is made."]}}