{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics","arm":"RETRIEVAL_FIRST","round_index":0,"hypotheses":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","title":"Scarcity-weighted telescope credits","problem":"Flat observing-credit charges ration oversubscribed conditions by queues while less-contended conditions go unused.","affected_stakeholder":"Small observing teams and time-allocation committees.","workflow_boundary":"Accepted proposal to assignment of telescope, instrument, and observing conditions.","failure_mode":"Low-value peak requests crowd out high-value requests, while users avoid acceptable off-peak conditions.","unit_of_analysis":"One requested telescope-hour by instrument and observing-condition band.","causal_lever":"Vary credit prices with forecast contention, retain protected-access credits, and rebate unused credits.","archetype_mapping":"Repairs a timing-allocation wedge without relaxing safety limits or scientific-access protections.","expected_value":"More completed high-priority observations and higher utilization, with distributional effects explicitly monitored.","falsifiable_claim":"A bounded pilot will increase completed priority-weighted observations per available hour by at least 10% without reducing early-career-team access by more than 2 percentage points.","diversity_rationale":"Tests a scarcity-dependent price lever at the facility-allocation boundary.","mechanism_slugs":["congestion_or_capacity_pricing_adjustment","impact_assessment_table","regulatory_simplification_pilot"],"search_questions":["Do observatories already use scarcity-weighted credits or shadow prices?","How much accepted time is lost to condition mismatch or unused capacity?","Which access safeguards prevent wealth or institutional prestige from determining allocation?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","title":"Archive-to-project clearinghouse","problem":"Usable archival observations remain underexploited while researchers propose duplicative data collection because compatible datasets and projects do not pair.","affected_stakeholder":"Archive researchers, data stewards, and telescope operators.","workflow_boundary":"Research-question formulation through selection of archival versus new observations.","failure_mode":"Metadata silos and compatibility uncertainty prevent mutually valuable dataset-project matches.","unit_of_analysis":"One candidate pairing between a research project and an archived dataset.","causal_lever":"Create a compatibility-scored clearinghouse that exposes coverage, calibration, rights, and compute requirements before new-time proposals.","archetype_mapping":"Removes a matching wedge that strands existing observational capacity while preserving data rights and provenance requirements.","expected_value":"More archival reuse and fewer avoidable duplicate observations, conditional on adequate metadata quality.","falsifiable_claim":"Teams receiving clearinghouse matches will substitute archival data for at least 15% more proposed new observing hours than matched controls, with no higher project-abandonment rate.","diversity_rationale":"Targets cross-organizational matching rather than pricing, approval, or eligibility rules.","mechanism_slugs":["matching_improvement_program","distortion_reduction_review","cost_benefit_assessment_protocol"],"search_questions":["What archive-recommendation or observation-duplication checks already exist?","How often do new proposals overlap scientifically usable archived observations?","Which compatibility fields best predict successful archival reuse?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","title":"Preauthorized transient follow-up","problem":"Serial approvals consume the short scientific window for transient-event follow-up.","affected_stakeholder":"Transient astronomers, observatory duty teams, and displaced scheduled observers.","workflow_boundary":"Validated alert receipt through target-of-opportunity execution.","failure_mode":"Low-risk requests undergo the same sequential scrutiny as novel or operationally hazardous overrides.","unit_of_analysis":"One alert-triggered follow-up request.","causal_lever":"Preauthorize bounded request classes, reuse submitted checks, and impose a duty-officer shot clock while retaining override and safety authority.","archetype_mapping":"Removes procedural delay around substantive safety and displacement review rather than weakening those protections.","expected_value":"More scientifically timely follow-ups with unchanged operational incidents and transparent displacement incidence.","falsifiable_claim":"For eligible alerts, preauthorization will cut median alert-to-execution time by at least 30% without increasing safety incidents or uncompensated displaced time.","diversity_rationale":"Tests an approval-path redesign for perishable events, unlike allocation prices or matching.","mechanism_slugs":["permit_or_approval_streamlining","impact_assessment_table","regulatory_simplification_pilot"],"search_questions":["Which approvals dominate target-of-opportunity latency?","What preauthorization schemes already operate in transient networks?","Do faster overrides increase incidents or concentrate displacement on particular programs?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","title":"Evidence-conditioned data embargoes","problem":"Uniform proprietary periods delay reuse even when the originating team has completed analysis or ceased active work.","affected_stakeholder":"External researchers, originating teams, archives, and public funders.","workflow_boundary":"Calibrated-data delivery through unrestricted archival release.","failure_mode":"A fixed embargo persists without testing whether additional exclusivity still protects legitimate first-use interests.","unit_of_analysis":"One dataset-month under proprietary restriction.","causal_lever":"Replace automatic full-term persistence with milestone-triggered release and evidence-based extensions subject to appeal.","archetype_mapping":"Reduces a stale access restriction while preserving bounded first-use protection and sensitive-data exceptions.","expected_value":"Earlier secondary science and citation value without materially reducing originating-team publication completion.","falsifiable_claim":"Eligible milestone-based releases will shorten median embargo exposure by at least 20% while changing originating-team first-publication rates by less than 5%.","diversity_rationale":"Targets a temporal rights rule and evaluates dataset-months rather than facility requests or matches.","mechanism_slugs":["sunset_clause_review","quota_or_allocation_rule_review","cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","impact_assessment_table"],"search_questions":["How do astronomy archives currently set and extend proprietary periods?","What fraction of embargoed datasets are inactive before scheduled release?","Does earlier release measurably displace originating-team publications or benefit secondary users?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","title":"Safeguarded short-gap filler queue","problem":"Minimum-block and eligibility rules leave short telescope-schedule gaps idle although useful brief observations could fit.","affected_stakeholder":"Observatory schedulers and teams needing short calibration, monitoring, or pilot observations.","workflow_boundary":"Final nightly schedule construction through execution of otherwise idle gaps.","failure_mode":"Coarse minimum-duration rules exclude feasible uses to protect efficiency from slew, setup, and calibration overhead.","unit_of_analysis":"One idle schedule gap of predefined duration and instrument state.","causal_lever":"Admit pre-vetted filler observations only when predicted setup overhead and disruption remain below fixed limits.","archetype_mapping":"Repairs a coarse eligibility wedge while retaining the operational cap that protects adjacent observations.","expected_value":"More scientifically productive minutes from existing capacity with bounded disruption risk.","falsifiable_claim":"A six-month filler queue will convert at least 20% of eligible idle-gap minutes into quality-controlled data while adding less than 1% overhead to adjacent observations.","diversity_rationale":"Tests a rule-based micro-allocation repair at execution time, distinct from proposal pricing, matching, approvals, and embargoes.","mechanism_slugs":["quota_or_allocation_rule_review","distortion_reduction_review","regulatory_simplification_pilot"],"search_questions":["How much idle time occurs in gaps below current minimum blocks?","Which facilities already use queue fillers or short-program pools?","What gap, slew, and calibration thresholds predict harmless insertion?"]}]}