{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_external_evaluation_20260802","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__communication_media_studies:DISCARDED_AUDIT:H3:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__communication_media_studies","search_queries":["community radio program scheduling unused airtime slots policy program proposals community radio official","community radio programming policy missed shows program slot removed schedule committee pdf","community radio station program application policy time slot renewal missed programs official","community radio programming committee schedule slots evaluation policy unused slot","community radio policy time slot attendance programmer removed","LPFM program host policy missed show time slot reassigned","community radio grandfathered time slot program","community radio open slots schedule volunteers shortage study"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Application for renewal of a community radio broadcasting licence (ACMA B66)","publisher":"Australian Communications and Media Authority","url":"https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/acma_b66_application_for_renewal_of_a_community_radio_broadcasting_licence.pdf","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2023-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Australian licence renewal review asks stations to explain how programs are selected and how the community participates.","The form collects counts of new proposals, approvals, presenters, and the existence of programming and participation policies."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Code 3 – Diversity, Independence and Our Community","publisher":"Community Broadcasting Association of Australia","url":"https://www.cbaa.org.au/resources/resource-library/code-3-diversity-independence-our-community","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2025-07-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Community-radio schedules collectively must reflect community needs and diversity and stations must encourage participation by underserved people.","Guidance recommends transparent governance, program pitches, impact metrics, and replacement of automated hours with local programs as volunteer capacity permits.","Volunteer scarcity can itself limit local programming, so unfilled or automated hours do not necessarily establish incumbent hoarding."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Fraser Coast Community Radio FM 107.5 – Program Proposal 2023/2024","publisher":"Fraser Coast Community Radio FM 107.5","url":"https://www.frasercoast.fm/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/program-proposal-form-20232024-fd34da9c2472.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2023-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["The station already reassesses program proposals and renewals on a six-month cycle.","Applicants renewing a slot must supply alternative availability, and community contribution is considered during assessment.","Programs remain subject to the station's programming committee, codes, and regulatory requirements."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Programming","publisher":"Community Radio Toolkit","url":"https://www.communityradiotoolkit.net/on-air/programming/","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2005","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Regular schedule rotation is an established method for widening access when demand exceeds available airtime.","The guidance explicitly contemplates removing existing volunteer programs temporarily so another producer can use the slot.","It recommends clear, consistently applied rotation rules and treats a show slot as a privilege rather than a permanent right."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Get Involved – On-Air Programmer and Time Slots","publisher":"KZUM 89.3 FM","url":"https://kzum.org/get-involved/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Certified prospective programmers may substitute while waiting for their own slots.","Schedule openings are competitive and allocated according to programming strategy, community need, underrepresented content, preparedness, and commitment.","Qualification does not guarantee assignment of airtime."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Program Hosts and Creators","publisher":"Town of Readfield, Maine / WRCP-LP","url":"https://www.readfieldmaine.gov/recreation-community-programming/readfield-radio/pages/program-hosts-and-creators","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["The station controls scheduling and requires advance substitute requests for missed live shows.","Repeated violations can cause loss of access or reassignment to a less desirable slot.","Automation prevents dead air when a producer is absent, demonstrating that an assigned-but-unperformed hour need not appear as literal silence."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"University Radio Hilo Policies and Procedures","publisher":"University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo","url":"https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/radio/policies.php","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Open and unclaimed slots are allocated by a program coordinator using status, conduct, commitment, and institutional-priority criteria.","Repeated missed shows may trigger discipline, and DJs ending a show must provide notice.","The station already has a periodic scheduling process and an identified decision authority."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"WSUM and SAC Policy","publisher":"University of Wisconsin–Madison / WSUM","url":"https://kb.wisc.edu/wsum/114286","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2021-10-13","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["A third unexcused absence causes a show to be taken away for the remainder of the semester.","A host penalized for absence is unlikely to retain the previous slot in the following semester.","The program director already exercises discretion over attendance penalties and schedule continuity."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"The sources establish scarce and competitive slots, renewal cycles, automated or substitute-filled absences, and qualified producers waiting for openings. They do not directly document the proposed conjunction: persistently unused grandfathered assignments at identifiable stations while qualified, community-relevant proposals are denied. Guidance also identifies volunteer scarcity as a competing explanation for nonlocal or automated hours.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Regulatory review and sector standards explicitly require community participation, diverse and locally significant programming, program-selection policies, and records of proposals and approvals. Station policies show that programming committees and program directors are credible adopters or authorizers and that certified producers seek access to scarce slots.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S5","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Regular community-radio schedule rotation","similarity":"Directly reallocates scarce airtime from current presenters to other volunteers when access demand exceeds availability, with advance, consistently applied rules.","remaining_difference":"The guidance does not prescribe the hypothesis's 25% utilization target, formal community-value scoring, representation thresholds, or an appeal process.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Fraser Coast six-month proposal and renewal assessment","similarity":"Time slots are periodically renewed, incumbents must disclose alternative availability, and a programming committee assesses continued assignment.","remaining_difference":"The public form does not reveal an explicit persistent-nonuse trigger, public scoring rubric, notice-and-appeal procedure, or evaluated utilization effect.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"KZUM competitive community-needs allocation","similarity":"Qualified programmers wait for openings that are assigned using community need, programming strategy, and underrepresented-content criteria.","remaining_difference":"The page does not state that incumbents are systematically reclaimed for low utilization or that applicants may appeal.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"University Radio Hilo open-slot allocation and missed-show discipline","similarity":"A designated coordinator assigns open slots by stated criteria and may discipline incumbents after repeated missed shows.","remaining_difference":"It is semester-based campus radio and does not report protected representation thresholds or comparative outcomes.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"WSUM removal after repeated unexcused absences","similarity":"An incumbent's show is removed after a defined nonuse proxy and the prior slot is not presumptively retained.","remaining_difference":"The rule is disciplinary rather than a community-value reallocation protocol and lacks notice-and-appeal detail in the cited policy.","source_ids":["S8"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"The only potentially distinctive claim is the complete procedural bundle: measure station-hour nonuse, trigger reclamation after persistence, score replacement proposals transparently against community value, preserve representation and public-service floors, provide incumbent notice and appeal, and test a preregistered 25% utilization improvement. No evidence shows that this bundle outperforms the already established practices of renewal, rotation, substitution, and removal for nonattendance.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Implementation requires ordinary schedule logs, proposal forms, a programming committee or director, defined review cycles, notices, and monitoring. All are already present in multiple station and regulator workflows. The technical burden is low, although governance safeguards and appeal handling require local policy work.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Recovering genuinely stranded airtime could increase local participation and programming diversity, but the prevalence and audience value of the target loss are not quantified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Sector standards, licence review, and competitive producer demand create clear institutional and participant incentives for better allocation.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Defined utilization triggers and appeals may improve consistency, but no comparative evidence shows advantage over existing rotation, renewal, substitution, and attendance-enforcement policies.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":1,"rationale":"The core intervention—periodically reclaiming scarce airtime and assigning it to other qualified producers using programming criteria—is established practice.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S7","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":5,"rationale":"Existing logs, renewal forms, scheduling authorities, absence rules, and proposal processes supply nearly all operational components.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6","S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Programming committees, program directors, boards, and licensees already control slot assignment; adoption is feasible subject to station governance and applicable participation obligations.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"Stations can measure scheduled and delivered hours and count producers, but the record lacks baseline prevalence, a validated definition of unused airtime, and comparative outcome data.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6","S7","S8"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Notice, appeal, time limits, representation floors, and continued public-service requirements appropriately protect incumbents and underserved groups, consistent with sector diversity obligations.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"scalability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The process uses common station governance and scheduling artifacts and could diffuse across stations, although community-value criteria must remain locally tailored.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"One-station retrospective audit of two scheduling cycles plus shadow scoring of proposals and a preregistered analysis plan.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Electronic or paper schedule and attendance logs already exist.","Staff or volunteer committee time is the main input.","No custom software or audience survey is required for the first evidence step."],"source_ids":["S1","S3","S6","S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Draft the reclamation rule, define nonuse and community-value criteria, consult affected producers, review representation safeguards, configure reporting, and train reviewers for one station.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A small station uses existing scheduling systems.","The band includes limited legal or governance review and compensated administrative time.","It excludes litigation, major software procurement, and transmitter changes."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"Run the first reassignment cycle, issue notices, process a small number of appeals, onboard replacement producers, and monitor protected thresholds.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Fewer than 20 slots are reviewed.","Replacement producers are already trained or require only standard station training.","Appeals remain internal and documentary."],"source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"Two periodic utilization reviews per year, proposal scoring, notices and appeals, and reporting of utilization, producer diversity, and compliance thresholds at one small station.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing staff or volunteers perform most reviews.","The station already maintains program and attendance logs.","The estimate is for one small community station, not a network-wide deployment."],"source_ids":["S1","S3","S6","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"External sources show scarce slots, waiting producers, absences, and periodic renewal, but not the prevalence of persistently underused grandfathered slots coinciding with rejected qualified producers.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Programming committees, program directors, station boards, and licensees already allocate slots and enforce participation and programming policies.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"NO","reason":"The 25% outcome is testable, but the hypothesis does not establish an incremental causal advantage over established renewal, schedule-rotation, substitution, and missed-show removal practices.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A single-station shadow review followed by one limited scheduling-cycle pilot can test utilization, producer count, representation floors, and appeals without changing the broadcast-hour cap.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"Stations already possess scheduling authority, and the stated notice, appeal, representation, and public-service safeguards make a reversible local pilot governable.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The workflow is operationally bounded and low-tech, but no external source supplies implementation prices, station scale, staff rates, expected appeal volume, or training burden.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"At one station, preregister a 12-week shadow-to-live pilot: audit the preceding two scheduling cycles at the station-hour level; define 'unused' before analysis; enumerate qualified proposals denied or wait-listed; shadow-score reclamation decisions using published community-value and protected-representation criteria; then, only if the target conjunction exists, reassign a small capped set of persistently unused slots with notice and appeal. Compare unused assigned hours, distinct qualified producers, local-program hours, representation/public-service compliance, substitutions, complaints, and appeals against the matched prior cycle, explicitly testing the stated 25% reduction.","blocking_evidence":["No direct station-level evidence establishes that persistently unused grandfathered hours and blocked qualified producers coexist at meaningful scale.","No comparative evidence shows that the proposed bundle improves outcomes beyond existing renewal, rotation, substitution, and missed-show enforcement.","The hypothesis does not operationally define 'unused assigned hours,' 'qualified producer,' or the denominator and time window for the 25% claim.","No externally anchored estimate exists for policy-design, consultation, training, monitoring, or appeal costs.","The proposed community-value criteria have not been tested for consistency, viewpoint neutrality, or distributional effects on incumbent minority and public-service programming."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"No world-novel scheduling mechanism is established. Recurrent renewal, rotation of incumbent slots, competitive community-needs allocation, substitution during absences, and removal after repeated nonattendance are already documented. At most, novelty could reside in the unvalidated combination of a quantitative nonuse trigger, public scoring, protected programming floors, notice and appeal, and a preregistered utilization endpoint; this is a local procedural refinement, not a differentiated opportunity on the present evidence.","arm":"DISCARDED_AUDIT","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_DIFFUSION","repairable":true,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Establish the target problem's prevalence with station-hour logs linked to denied or wait-listed qualified proposals.","Compare the full bundle against existing renewal and attendance-enforcement practice rather than against no policy.","Operationalize nonuse, qualification, community value, protected thresholds, and the 25% denominator before testing.","Obtain station-specific administrative and appeal cost data."],"reason":"The hypothesis does not satisfy the strict differentiated-opportunity endpoint as written. Its problem prevalence is unverified, its cost basis is weak, and its central intervention substantially reproduces established community-radio scheduling practice. The appropriate path is diffusion or comparative improvement research, not treatment as a novel opportunity."}}