{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_external_evaluation_20260802","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics:RETRIEVAL_FIRST:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics","search_queries":["site:science.nrao.edu VLA 26A TAC report pressure available hours prioritizer","site:science.nrao.edu/facilities/vla/docs/manuals/obsguide pressure dynamic queue scheduling block flexibility","site:eso.org Scheduling Service Mode Programmes priority constraints service mode","site:arxiv.org 2407.15470 Time Allocation Long-Term Scheduling ESO","Observatory Control System Adaptive Scheduler effective priority proposal priority investigator duration","site:tmt.org/page/observing-modes queue prioritization partner share meteorological","Alnitak Research Telescope Access Program credits delivered imaging time","site:nexsci.caltech.edu/missions/KeckSolicitation 2026B oversubscribed five to one efficient telescope time","\"The Design of Mechanisms to Allocate Space Station Resources\" Caltech","site:authors.library.caltech.edu/records/68k2y-nze20"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Guide to Observing with the VLA Complete Manual","publisher":"National Radio Astronomy Observatory","url":"https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vla/docs/manuals/obsguide/referencemanual-all-pages","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Accepted VLA projects compete in a dynamic queue, and more time is approved than is actually available.","TAC priority already reflects scientific rank, available time, requested local-sidereal-time ranges, and competition from better-ranked proposals.","NRAO publishes pressure plots and lets observers alter scheduling-block duration, weather limits, frequency grouping, and LST flexibility, while warning that excessive flexibility can compromise science.","The scheduler retains operational control and applies current-condition, safety, feasibility, and priority heuristics."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"26A TAC Report","publisher":"National Radio Astronomy Observatory","url":"https://science.nrao.edu/observing/proposal-types/tac-reports/26a-tac-report","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["For semester 2026A, requested hours exceeded available hours by factors of 1.5 for GBT, 4.4 for VLBA, 2.3 for VLA A configuration, and 2.1 for VLA D configuration.","NRAO measures allocation pressure by observing window and weather category.","The VLA Prioritizer already converts scientific rank and capacity pressure into proposed scheduling priorities, with TAC authority to revise them.","VLA rules intentionally approve filler time above nominal capacity to support utilization."]},{"source_id":"S3","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":"2026-04-17","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["ESO service-mode execution already filters observations against target, seeing, moon, precipitable-water-vapor, and other constraints.","Executable observations are ranked using programme priority, constraint difficulty, user priority, and group scores.","Condition-aware centralized scheduling is established practice rather than a novel feature of the candidate."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Adaptive Scheduler","publisher":"Observatory Control System","url":"https://observatorycontrolsystem.github.io/components/adaptive_scheduler/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["An implemented open observatory scheduler continuously optimizes effective priority using mixed-integer programming.","The scheduler can incorporate telescope availability, weather telemetry, proposal priority, investigator priority, duration, and request windows.","The documented architecture supports technical feasibility of replaying alternative priority or allocation rules without controlling a live telescope."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Observing Modes and Time Allocation","publisher":"TMT International Observatory","url":"https://www.tmt.org/page/observing-modes","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["TMT identifies maximum observing efficiency and science-program outcomes as an operations goal.","Its planned service-mode scheduler prioritizes using meteorological conditions, scientific priority, time criticality, partner shares, and programme completeness.","TMT members control their allocated shares, while observatory staff retain sole operational control of instruments and telescope execution.","Partner shares provide an established access-protection analogue, although not an early-career credit entitlement."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Alnitak Research Telescope Access Program","publisher":"Alnitak Remote Observatories","url":"https://www.alnitakobs.com/arta/","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","publication_date":"2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Accepted research proposals receive telescope credits in an account.","Users spend credits through a telescope reservation and observing-plan workflow.","Credits are debited only for imaging time actually delivered, closely anticipating the candidate's delivery-rebate element.","The page does not document contention-varying credit prices or protected-access endowments."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"The Design of Mechanisms to Allocate Space Station Resources","publisher":"California Institute of Technology","url":"https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/68k2y-nze20","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"1987-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Priority contracts and auction mechanisms were designed for allocating uncertain scientific-platform resources and contingent rescheduling.","Laboratory tests found significantly greater expected efficiency than first-come-first-served allocation, although outcomes remained below full efficiency.","Scarcity-based bidding for uncertain scientific capacity is longstanding adjacent prior art."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"2026B NASA-Keck Call for Proposals","publisher":"NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, California Institute of Technology","url":"https://nexsci.caltech.edu/missions/KeckSolicitation/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2026-02-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["NASA-Keck time is typically oversubscribed by approximately five to one.","Allocation considers scientific merit, strategic importance, resource availability, and the uniqueness of Keck capabilities.","The NASA-Keck TAC recommends allocations, the NExScI Executive Director makes final selections, and NExScI coordinates scheduling with Keck.","The call requires applicants to state scheduling flexibility and backup or descope plans, confirming that substitution and schedule feasibility matter to the allocating institution."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Severe telescope-time scarcity and condition-specific capacity pressure visibly exist: NRAO reports requested hours well above availability, VLA exposes LST/weather pressure, and NASA-Keck reports approximately 5:1 oversubscription. Existing systems also encourage teams to alter duration and constraints. However, the candidate's narrower causal problem is not established: the sources do not show a noncommercial facility using flat observing credits, nor do they quantify simultaneous unused scientifically acceptable capacity and congested requests attributable to a flat credit charge rather than genuine scarcity, scientific constraints, or scheduler limitations.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Identifiable institutions and decision authorities exist. TMT expressly seeks maximum observing efficiency; the NExScI Executive Director is the final NASA-Keck selecting official; the NASA-Keck TAC and Keck scheduling process consider resource availability and flexibility; and NRAO's TAC and operations staff already manage pressure-aware allocation. None of these sources requests scarcity-weighted team credits or commits to testing them, so expressed pull is for efficient allocation generally rather than for this intervention.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"VLA pressure-aware prioritizer and dynamic queue","similarity":"Measures pressure by observing window and weather category, converts scientific merit and contention into scheduling priority, publishes pressure information, and allows observer-controlled flexibility.","remaining_difference":"Contention affects an operator-assigned queue priority rather than a fixed team budget's per-hour credit charge.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},{"name":"ESO and OCS condition-aware priority scheduling","similarity":"Filters requests for feasibility and optimizes execution using conditions, programme or proposal priority, investigator priority, and duration.","remaining_difference":"These are centralized scheduler objectives rather than user-spent, contention-priced credits intended to elicit request substitution.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},{"name":"Alnitak proposal-awarded telescope credits","similarity":"Accepted teams receive credits and are debited only for successfully delivered imaging time.","remaining_difference":"The documentation does not show forecast-contention prices or protected-access credit endowments.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"TMT adaptive scheduling and protected partner shares","similarity":"Combines meteorological state, scientific priority, time criticality, programme completeness, and protected partner shares.","remaining_difference":"Partner shares are not early-career credits, and teams do not spend scarcity-priced credits among condition bands.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"Space Station priority contracts and auctions","similarity":"Uses bids or priority contracts to allocate scheduled scientific-platform capacity and contingent priority under uncertainty.","remaining_difference":"It is not an observatory deployment and does not combine telescope-condition prices, protected-access endowments, and automatic delivery rebates.","source_ids":["S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For one bounded observatory period, an ex ante team budget whose per-hour credit charge varies by forecast telescope, instrument, and observing-condition contention, combined with protected-access endowments and automatic restoration for undelivered time, will increase completed priority-weighted observations per available hour by at least 10% relative to both the current pressure-aware scheduler and an information-only pressure baseline, without reducing early-career-team access by more than 2 percentage points. The exact integration was not found in the bounded search, but absence from these sources is not evidence of world novelty.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The components are separately implementable: observatories already store proposal ranks, request constraints, capacity pressure, execution status, and weather information; open scheduler documentation shows replayable optimization; Alnitak demonstrates credit accounting and delivered-time-only debit. A read-only replay is operationally safe. The central behavioral response cannot be inferred reliably from historical logs alone because teams have not faced the proposed prices. Protected-group labels, archived forecast quality, scientifically acceptable alternatives, and governance-approved access to proprietary logs also remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Telescope time is scarce and scientifically valuable, so a genuine 10% gain in priority-weighted completion could matter. The recoverable residual beyond mature queue scheduling has not been measured.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S8"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Facilities express demand for efficient, strategically valuable scheduling and have identifiable authorizers, but no source asks for or endorses scarcity-weighted credits.","source_ids":["S5","S8"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Existing pressure-aware and condition-aware schedulers already address most of the proposed allocation problem. Incremental value depends on an untested user-choice effect beyond pressure information and centralized optimization.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The exact four-part integration was not found, but credits, delivery rebates, protected shares, scarcity mechanisms, and dynamic scheduling all have close precedents. This supports only a narrow integration claim.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A shadow replay and credit ledger are technically conventional, but reconstructing decision-time forecasts and modeling team substitution credibly will require careful data engineering and experimental design.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Allocation and operations authorities are identifiable, and a shadow study need not alter live schedules. Adoption would still require coordination among scientific review, facility governance, scheduling, operations, and protected-access stakeholders.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Relevant operational variables appear to exist, but the necessary logs are proprietary, protected-group measurement is unconfirmed, and historical data contain no revealed choices under scarcity prices.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":2,"rationale":"Protected endowments, delivery rebates, expiry, and rollback could limit exclusion and operational harm, but their adequacy for early-career access is untested and partner-share precedent is not equivalent.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"The software concepts can transfer across queued facilities, but price construction, scientific-value weights, access rules, instruments, conditions, and governance are facility-specific.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"A partnered, preregistered analysis of one completed scheduling period plus an offline choice experiment with observing teams; includes data agreements, de-identification, contention reconstruction, baseline replay, experimental design, incidence analysis, and reporting.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 0.5-1.5 FTE-years across scheduling/data engineering, astronomy operations, mechanism design, and evaluation.","Existing logs and a scheduler interface are available; no new telescope hardware or live schedule change is included.","Facility staff time and participant recruitment are counted as resource-equivalent cost."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Productionize forecast pressure, credit-ledger, protected-endowment, audit, user-interface, and rollback components and integrate them with one facility's proposal and scheduling systems.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One facility and one bounded instrument or queue are included.","Existing identity, proposal, telemetry, and scheduling infrastructure can be extended.","Independent fairness, security, and operational reviews are required."],"source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Run one expiring live pilot with parallel baseline monitoring, user support, operations staffing, governance review, incident response, and independent evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No telescope hardware modification is needed.","The pilot is limited to already accepted and operationally feasible observations.","Facility opportunity cost, staff training, and contingency coverage are included but lost science from a failed pilot is not monetized."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain forecasts and software, administer credits and protected access, monitor gaming and incidence, support users, audit outcomes, and recalibrate or roll back the rule.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The mechanism remains limited to one facility.","Approximately 0.5-1.5 recurring FTE-equivalents plus routine computing and review are sufficient.","Major scheduler replacement or new governance litigation is excluded."],"source_ids":["S1","S4","S5"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official data establish material oversubscription, observing-window pressure, and constrained allocation. The residual loss caused specifically by flat credits remains an empirical subquestion.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S8"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"NExScI's Executive Director is an identified final selector for NASA-Keck time, while TACs, facility governance, and observatory operations have documented allocation and execution roles. No adoption commitment is evidenced.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate specifies an incremental comparison against current pressure-aware scheduling and can be rejected if the gain is below 10%, access falls by more than 2 percentage points, or an information-only comparator performs equivalently.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"One completed scheduling period, frozen ranks and constraints, a three-arm offline comparison, predetermined metrics, and explicit falsifiers form a bounded study.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"A read-only study creates no direct telescope safety exposure, and live operational control can remain unchanged. However, no facility partner, data authorization, protected-group definition, privacy review, or live-pilot authority has been secured.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four bands are bounded to a one-facility study and pilot and are tied to identifiable data, scheduling, governance, monitoring, and support work. Confidence is limited because no facility supplied an internal estimate.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Secure one observatory partner and preregister a study using one completed scheduling period. First, freeze accepted proposals, scientific ranks, capacity, safety constraints, partner shares, and information available before assignment; test whether high-pressure telescope/instrument/condition bands coexisted with unused capacity that teams had identified as scientifically acceptable. If that residual state exists, recruit approximately 20-40 eligible observing teams for an offline, nonbinding choice experiment using de-identified historical choice sets with three randomized comparators: current workflow, current workflow plus pressure information, and scarcity-weighted noncash credits with protected endowments and delivery rebates. Feed choices into a validated replay of the current scheduler and report utilization, completed priority-weighted observations per available hour, execution by team type, forecast sensitivity, administrative burden, and gaming indicators. Falsify the intervention if residual feasible slack is absent; teams do not substitute beyond the information-only arm; the scarcity-credit arm improves priority-weighted completion by less than 10%; early-career access falls by more than 2 percentage points; results disappear under plausible forecast errors; or baseline replay cannot reproduce recorded scheduling closely enough for interpretation. No live allocation changes are authorized by this study.","blocking_evidence":["No opened source demonstrates that a noncommercial observatory currently imposes the flat observing-credit charge that the intervention proposes to vary.","No facility-level data establish simultaneous congested requested bands and unused alternatives that were scientifically acceptable to the same teams.","Historical logs cannot reveal how teams would respond to counterfactual scarcity prices; an offline choice experiment or live pilot is required.","Access to proposal ranks, constraints, forecasts, execution logs, team categories, and scheduler interfaces is likely proprietary and has not been authorized.","No adopter has expressed willingness to implement or test the credit mechanism.","Early-career eligibility, baseline access, and a legally or institutionally acceptable protected-credit rule are undefined.","Cost bands are bottom-up resource-equivalent estimates rather than facility quotations.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The bounded search establishes that pressure-aware allocation, condition-aware priority queues, proposal-awarded telescope credits, delivered-time-only debit, protected institutional shares, and auction allocation of uncertain scientific resources all pre-exist. It did not locate the exact integration of forecast contention-dependent telescope credits, protected-access endowments, and automatic undelivered-time restoration at a noncommercial observatory. This is only a search boundary, not a world-novelty, patentability, freedom-to-operate, market-size, or realized-impact finding.","arm":"RETRIEVAL_FIRST","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":true,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain written partnership, data-access, privacy, and shadow-replay authorization from one observatory.","Measure whether the residual problem exists: congested requests and unused scientifically acceptable capacity after the current scheduler and pressure information are accounted for.","Validate a current-policy replay against recorded schedules before evaluating counterfactual rules.","Elicit team choices in a nonbinding randomized comparison of current workflow, information-only pressure disclosure, and scarcity-weighted credits.","Demonstrate at least a 10% increase in completed priority-weighted observations per available hour relative to both comparators without more than a 2-percentage-point early-career access loss.","Quantify forecast-error sensitivity, administrative burden, gaming, distributional incidence, and rollback triggers before requesting any live pilot."],"reason":"Web evidence verifies scarce, pressure-sensitive telescope allocation and identifies credible authorities, but it also shows substantial collision with mature scheduling practice. The remaining advantage depends on proprietary operational data and observing-team behavior under a mechanism they have not encountered. Those questions require a facility partnership and offline or live empirical testing, so further bounded web research cannot resolve the decisive evidence gaps."}}