{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_external_evaluation_20260802","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics:PROPOSAL_FIRST:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics","search_queries":["site:gemini.edu observing queue scheduling poor weather classical mode queue completion telescope official","site:eso.org service mode scheduling weather constraints observing blocks official astronomy","telescope dynamic scheduling queue observing efficiency paper astronomy","telescope time allocation unused observing time reassignment backup programs","site:noirlab.edu telescope queue backup programs weather observing time official","site:nrao.edu \"backup project\" telescope time cancelled observing official","site:keckobservatory.org observing schedule swap nights weather backup program","site:gemini.edu queue scheduling conditions priority observing programs official","queue observing versus classical observing efficiency telescope quantitative paper weather loss","WIYN queue experiment efficiency scientific effectiveness backup observations paper","astronomical telescope scheduling idle time weather fixed schedule study","observatory queue scheduling utilization scientific output study","observatory \"unused time\" \"backup programs\" telescope scheduling","observatory \"return time\" telescope allocation program weather","telescope schedule \"filler programs\" observatory idle time","telescope time allocation committee scheduling flexibility backup program fairness"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Any-weather observing programmes","publisher":"European Southern Observatory","url":"https://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/lpo/cfp/cfp117/statistics.html.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["ESO measured idle time, when conditions were acceptable but no Observation Block was available, at 0.2%–5.8% across VLT/VLTI units during August 2021–August 2023.","Right-ascension mismatch was the largest individual reported cause of idle time.","ESO schedules roughly 1,000–1,500 hours of any-weather filler runs per semester, of which about 25%–50% are executed."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Dynamic Scheduling System","publisher":"National Radio Astronomy Observatory / Green Bank Observatory","url":"https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/gbt/schedules/dynamic","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["GBT dynamically matches scientific priority, observer availability, hardware, and predicted weather.","After a daily schedule is fixed, an observer may give up a weather-compromised period to a backup project.","GBT identifies increased observing efficiency, flexible rescheduling, rapid-response accommodation, and schedule transparency as benefits."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Dynamic Scheduling System Frequently Asked Questions","publisher":"Green Bank Observatory","url":"https://dss.gb.nrao.edu/static/html/faq.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Backup projects fill GBT cancellations caused by unexpected weather, hardware failures, or other disruptions to avoid dead time.","Backups may be operator-run under strict conditions or observer-run with as little as 15 minutes' notice.","Volunteering as a backup does not penalize a project's ordinary scheduling prospects."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Scheduling Service Mode Programmes","publisher":"European Southern Observatory","url":"https://www.eso.org/sci/observing/phase2/SMPhilosophy/SMScheduling.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["ESO's operational scheduler filters Observation Blocks for current feasibility and ranks feasible blocks using programme priority, constraints, user priority, and group score.","Selection among pre-reviewed, execution-ready blocks is an established operational workflow."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Service Mode Rules and Recommendations for Observation Blocks","publisher":"European Southern Observatory","url":"https://www.hq.eso.org/sci/observing/phase2/SMGuidelines/SMRules.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Service-mode efficiency depends on flexibility to match approved blocks to actual conditions.","ESO normally limits Observation Blocks and concatenations to less than one hour because longer blocks are harder to schedule under changing conditions.","Time windows, sequencing, calibration, and technical constraints must remain explicit; expired time-critical blocks become unobservable."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"The optimisation of short-term scheduling of science observations at Paranal observatory (VLT and ELT)","publisher":"SPIE / arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16049","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2024-07-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["A study using VLT execution data found that about 10% of attempted observing time was historically lost to blocks graded for repetition after conditions evolved outside requirements.","The authors built a simulator from operational constraints and historical queue properties to compare scheduling policies.","Their nowcast simulations produced about 3.5 additional successful A/B-ranked hours and 4.4 fewer unsuccessful hours per telescope-semester, demonstrating that retrospective simulation can detect modest policy effects.","The paper warns that results depend on queue composition and that idle duration and other omitted metrics must be included in broader evaluation."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"ALMA Operations Plan","publisher":"ALMA Project","url":"https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/pub/Main/ALMAFEInfo/ALMA-00.00.00.00-002-A-PLA.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2005-05-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["ALMA defines idle time as periods when the system and atmosphere are acceptable but no Scheduling Block is executable.","The plan authorizes the ALMA Director to create observatory filler programmes and requires downtime logging over multiple reporting intervals.","ALMA's operations concept uses dynamic service scheduling, self-contained Scheduling Blocks, calibration, quality assurance, and director/board authority."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Priority Z Time Programme","publisher":"Liverpool Telescope / Liverpool John Moores University","url":"https://telescope.livjm.ac.uk/PropInst/PriorityZ/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Liverpool Telescope explicitly solicits backup programmes for periods when no higher-ranked science group is executable and the telescope would otherwise idle.","The observatory estimates approximately 10–15 such hours per month.","Priority Z projects still receive internal scientific and technical assessment and must be suitable for sporadic or poor conditions."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The general loss is visible and material: ESO measured acceptable-condition idle time of 0.2%–5.8%, Liverpool estimates 10–15 idle-prone hours per month, and GBT explicitly uses backups to avoid dead time after fixed schedules become unsuitable. These sources validate weather/visibility mismatch and executable-program scarcity. They do not establish the candidate's narrower causal claim at an identified untreated telescope: that a block was operable, an already-reviewed substitute was feasible, and reassignment was blocked specifically by the assignment rule.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Observable institutional pull is strong for the function but weak for this proposed adopter relationship. GBT, ESO, ALMA, and Liverpool have implemented dynamic queues, backups, or filler programmes, and ALMA identifies a director with authority to authorize filler programmes. However, these are adopters of close analogues, not an identified fixed-block observatory expressing unmet demand for the candidate's particular voluntary return-and-credit pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S7","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"GBT weather-contingent give-up and backup projects","similarity":"Nearly exact functional match: after a schedule is fixed, an award holder may release unsuitable time to an eligible backup; operator-run and short-notice observer-run substitutes are supported, and backup participation is not penalized.","remaining_difference":"The public documentation does not describe the candidate's full published incidence table, cumulative-access term, explicit responsible-release scientific credit, semester sunset, or concentration rollback thresholds.","source_ids":["S2","S3"]},{"name":"ESO Service Mode short-term scheduling plus any-weather fillers","similarity":"Continuously filters pre-approved Observation Blocks for current feasibility, ranks them by scientific and operational criteria, and maintains filler programmes for conditions that would otherwise produce idle time.","remaining_difference":"This is a full service-mode queue rather than a voluntary return layer preserving classical fixed-block awards.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},{"name":"ALMA dynamic scheduling and director-authorized filler programmes","similarity":"Uses self-contained reviewed Scheduling Blocks, dynamic matching to conditions, director authority, filler programmes, quality assurance, and formal downtime logging.","remaining_difference":"The operations plan does not specify voluntary return credit or distributional monitoring by institution and career stage.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"Liverpool Telescope Priority Z programme","similarity":"Pre-reviewed backup programmes are held ready to fill otherwise idle periods caused by poor conditions, instrument limitations, or lack of higher-ranked executable work.","remaining_difference":"Priority Z is a low-priority standing filler queue, not reassignment of a specific voluntarily returned fixed block under the candidate's proposed fairness formula.","source_ids":["S8"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For an observatory that retains classical fixed-block awards and lacks equivalent backup authority, adding a voluntary, credit-preserving return pool restricted to already-reviewed substitutes will increase requirement-conforming science hours net of transition overhead, compared with current discretion or informal filler use, without increasing safety/calibration exceptions, operator workload beyond a predeclared ceiling, or concentration of substitute hours beyond eligible-pool representation. The remaining distinction is principally a lightweight governance and equity bundle, not the underlying scheduling mechanism; world novelty is unmeasured.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Multiple observatories already execute the core technical workflow: maintain pre-reviewed executable observations, filter them against current conditions, rank by priority and feasibility, switch to backup/filler work, and log outcomes. ESO research also demonstrates retrospective simulator-based comparison. Implementation still requires facility-specific instrument-transition rules, calibration dependencies, operator authority, proprietary-data controls, workload limits, and integration with the local scheduler; the unnamed target facility prevents confirming those details.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Measured idle fractions and 10–15 estimated hours per month show recoverable capacity can matter, but the candidate addresses only the narrower subset caused by a binding assignment despite a feasible substitute; its effect size is not yet measured.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S8"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Several major facilities have operationalized backups, fillers, or dynamic scheduling, showing strong demand for the function. No untreated facility has requested this exact pilot.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S7","S8"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"A lightweight return layer could be cheaper and less disruptive than converting a classical facility to full queue operation, while adding explicit incidence safeguards. No evidence yet shows it outperforms ordinary backup lists, discretionary fillers, or a dynamic queue.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S7"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":1,"rationale":"The core mechanism substantially collides with GBT's voluntary give-up and backup system and with established ESO, ALMA, and Liverpool filler practices. Only the combined credit, fairness, logging, and sunset governance remains contrastive.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S7","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":5,"rationale":"Operational systems already demonstrate feasibility of condition filtering, priority ranking, short-notice substitution, operator-run backups, quality controls, and audit logging.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Observatory directors and time-allocation governance bodies are plausible authorities, and the ALMA plan explicitly gives its Director filler-program authority. Authority at the unspecified candidate telescope, including credit and proprietary-policy changes, is unverified.","source_ids":["S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"A bounded retrospective simulation is technically credible and has research precedent, but contemporaneous schedules, conditions, proposal requirements, and operator records are likely internal or proprietary.","source_ids":["S6","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":2,"rationale":"Published priority and incidence safeguards could protect infrequent or under-resourced users, but substitute-time access may instead favor larger teams with execution-ready material. No distributional outcome evidence was found.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Analogues span optical, infrared, and radio facilities, but transfer depends on observing mode, instrument switching, calibration, staffing, and whether the facility already operates a queue.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S7","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One-telescope retrospective study of at most 30 historical idle, filler, or requirement-mismatched blocks; data extraction, blinded classification, shadow scheduling, overhead accounting, incidence table, and decision memo.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing schedule, weather, instrument-state, proposal-requirement, and execution-log data are machine-readable.","Approximately 0.1–0.3 FTE-years of scheduler, operations scientist, and analyst effort is required.","No live observations, investigator compensation, new hardware, or production software are included."],"source_ids":["S6","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and configure a one-telescope return-pool workflow, eligibility rules, priority calculation, audit logging, user interface changes, governance approval materials, tests, and staff training.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The facility already has a proposal database, feasibility checker, and scheduler that can be extended.","Implementation is a manual or minimally automated layer, not a replacement dynamic-queue platform.","The band includes internal engineering, operations, policy, and review labor but excludes telescope hardware."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S7"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Run and evaluate one live semester on one telescope, including scheduler/on-call coverage, operator training, monitoring, incident review, user communications, and end-of-semester analysis.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only designated instruments and weather-contingent blocks participate.","Existing operational staffing absorbs most night coverage, with incremental scheduling and analysis support.","No major collective-bargaining, travel, insurance, or hardware costs arise."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S7"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Steady-state operation for one telescope: roughly 0.25–1.0 combined FTE for queue curation, software maintenance, operator support, quality review, incidence audits, governance reporting, and periodic rule revision.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The system reuses existing observatory infrastructure.","The programme remains limited to one telescope and does not become a full service-mode conversion.","Costs are resource-equivalent 2026 USD rather than a vendor quote or accounting budget."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S7"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent official facilities report acceptable-condition idle time and operate backups specifically to prevent dead time. The precise assignment-rule contribution at the eventual target remains to be measured, but the underlying operational problem is externally supported.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S8"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"GBT, ESO, ALMA, and Liverpool are credible operational adopters of close analogues; the ALMA plan explicitly identifies the Observatory Director as an authorizer of filler programmes. A new untreated adopter has not yet been named.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim is contrastive and measurable against discretionary filler and full dynamic-queue comparators: net requirement-conforming hours, transition overhead, safety/calibration exceptions, operator workload, and access concentration can all be tested.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A maximum-30-block, one-semester retrospective shadow comparison is bounded, non-interventional, and supported by published telescope-scheduling simulation practice.","source_ids":["S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The retrospective step changes no award, observation, proprietary right, or safety decision. A live pilot would require local director/time-allocation approval and must preserve operator veto, calibration, instrument protection, scientific review, and data-rights policies, but no categorical stop was found.","source_ids":["S5","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The bands are scoped resource-equivalent estimates based on extending existing infrastructure. No target facility, systems architecture, labor plan, or facility-specific quotation is available, so deployment and recurring ranges remain low-confidence.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S7"]}},"next_evidence_step":"At one named fixed-block telescope that does not already exercise equivalent reassignment authority, obtain authorized access to one completed semester and sample no more than 30 blocks recorded as idle, filler, cancelled, or requirement-mismatched. Blind two reviewers to programme identity and compare three outcomes using only contemporaneous information: the recorded baseline; the proposed voluntary return rule; and the facility's closest feasible rival, either ordinary backup selection or full dynamic-queue ranking. Count a qualifying problem case only when the awarded programme was infeasible, the telescope and required instrument were operable, an already-approved substitute met its declared conditions, and policy prevented or materially delayed reassignment. Primary endpoint: additional requirement-conforming science hours after slew, setup, and calibration overhead. Secondary endpoints: operator labor, merit-tier and institution-type shares, time-critical completions, quality exceptions, and conflicts with proprietary or calibration rules. Falsify the problem if zero sampled blocks pass all four conditions. Falsify incremental benefit if net conforming hours are non-positive versus both comparators, any gain requires weakening scientific/technical/safety review, or critical calibration or instrument-protection exceptions occur. Before unblinding, the authorizer should also set a workload ceiling and an access-concentration threshold; exceeding either blocks a live pilot.","blocking_evidence":["No target telescope with both fixed-block inflexibility and unmet demand for this specific intervention has been identified.","No operational dataset establishes how frequently all four required conditions occur together or how much time the assignment rule, rather than weather, hardware, calibration, staffing, or absent substitutes, strands.","No comparative evidence shows the proposed return pool improves on an ordinary backup list, discretionary filler programme, or full dynamic queue.","Operator workload, gaming, data-quality, calibration, and distributional effects require proprietary records, field observation, or live testing.","Facility-specific authority over award credit, programme reassignment, proprietary rights, and scheduler changes is unknown.","Facility-specific software architecture, staffing rates, and integration effort are unavailable, leaving deployment cost estimates low-confidence."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not measured. The search establishes only that the core voluntary release/backup-reassignment function and closely related queue/filler mechanisms are established practices; it does not establish whether the candidate's exact combination of release credit, published incidence-aware priority, workload and concentration thresholds, and sunset governance has appeared everywhere or in patent literature.","arm":"PROPOSAL_FIRST","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":true,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Name one fixed-block telescope whose current policy lacks equivalent voluntary reassignment and secure an authorizer plus data custodian.","Obtain one semester of contemporaneous scheduling, conditions, instrument-state, approved-program, execution, and operator-workload records.","Complete the blinded maximum-30-block three-way shadow comparison against recorded practice and the closest backup or dynamic-queue rival.","Estimate the frequency and net hours of four-part qualifying cases, with transition, calibration, and quality overhead included.","Predeclare and test operator-workload, safety, calibration, gaming, and access-concentration falsifiers.","Produce a facility-specific systems map, staffing estimate, authority memorandum, and revised cost bands before any live pilot."],"reason":"Bounded web research found externally visible loss, credible authorities, and strong technical feasibility, but also substantial collision with established GBT, ESO, ALMA, and Liverpool practices. The decision now turns on facility-specific causal prevalence and comparative performance using internal operational data; additional public-web research cannot determine whether an untreated fixed-block observatory has qualifying stranded blocks or whether this governance bundle adds value."}}