{"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 programming policy program time slots review renewal unused slot policy","community radio program proposal time slot scheduling policy volunteer programmers","community radio access airtime allocation policy community producers official","community radio programming committee schedule slot review policy PDF","community radio programmer handbook missed shows time slot forfeited","community radio programming policy failure to attend show slot removed presenter agreement","community radio schedule review program slot annual application policy timeslot","community radio no guarantee time slot presenter policy"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"WBCA 102.9 FM Policies","publisher":"Boston Neighborhood Network Media","url":"https://bnnmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WBCA-102.9-FM-Policies.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2023-07","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Series schedules may be reconstructed periodically to create opportunities for new programs.","Series slots are not renewed automatically.","Members who fail to deliver scheduled programming may lose eligibility for a weekly series.","Scheduling uses local-content and community-need priorities."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"SWR 99.9 FM Rules, Guidelines & Policies, Version 6","publisher":"SWR 99.9 FM","url":"https://www.swr999.com.au/wp-content/uploads/swr-rulebook-v6-may-2025-dca51ed023fb.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2025-05","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["The entire schedule is cleared every 26 weeks and broadcasters must reapply.","Slots are time-limited and no applicant is guaranteed renewal.","A programming committee reallocates airtime according to program need.","Programming disputes can be escalated from the programming committee to the board."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Programming Policy","publisher":"3MDR 97.1 FM","url":"https://www.3mdr.com/about/documents/programming-policy/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2023-11-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["The station conducts an annual program review.","Presenters have no guarantee of placement on the program grid.","Timeslot decisions are made according to diversity, mission, and programming aims."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"KSQD Volunteer Handbook","publisher":"KSQD Community Radio","url":"https://ksqd.org/ksqd-programmer-handbook/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Two no-shows result in loss of a show.","Air-shift assignments are reviewed annually.","Annual scheduling considers community surveys and advisory-board feedback.","A preliminary schedule receives public comment before approval, and complaints have an escalation path."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Get Involved: Group Applications and Timeslot Allocation","publisher":"3ZZZ Ethnic Community Radio","url":"https://www.3zzz.com.au/get-involved/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["An elected programming committee allocates and reviews timeslots, subject to council approval.","Existing programs ordinarily receive three months' notice of a timeslot change.","Timeslots are reviewed annually and applications are assessed for community representation."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"KZZH Programming Selection and Review Policy","publisher":"Access Humboldt / KZZH-LP","url":"https://kzzh.accesshumboldt.net/kzzh-programming-policies","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2023-05","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Programming is selected using local relevance, public importance, opposing viewpoints, and representation of protected communities.","Priority is given to local content serving underrepresented communities.","Programming decisions have a multi-level appeal route reaching the board."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Community TV and Radio Content Rules","publisher":"Australian Communications and Media Authority","url":"https://www.acma.gov.au/content-rules-community-radio-and-tv","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2025-07-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Community broadcasters must encourage community involvement in program selection and provision.","Programming remains subject to licence conditions, community standards, complaints, and regulatory enforcement."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Programming","publisher":"Community Radio Toolkit","url":"https://www.communityradiotoolkit.net/on-air/programming/","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Community-radio airtime may be dominated by a small number of regular presenters despite access demand.","Fixed-term shows, rotating schedules, and periodic complete rescheduling are recommended ways to broaden access.","Rotation must use known rules and balance access, quality, listener needs, and presenter treatment."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"The sources establish that missed programs, unequal access pressure, and competition for finite airtime are recognized operational concerns. They do not provide station-level prevalence data showing that grandfathered allocations routinely produce persistent unused assigned hours, nor do they quantify the affected audience or recoverable airtime. The hypothesis's specific causal diagnosis is therefore plausible but not externally demonstrated.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Station policies and regulatory guidance show sustained institutional demand for equitable community participation, local and underrepresented voices, dependable slot use, periodic schedule review, notice, and appeal. Community stations themselves possess the relevant scheduling authority.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"WBCA periodic series-slot reconstruction","similarity":"Slots are periodically reconstructed, are not automatically renewed, and can be withheld from producers who fail to deliver scheduled programs; allocation follows community-oriented priorities.","remaining_difference":"The policy does not report a 25% unused-hour target or label the trigger as persistent nonuse.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"SWR 26-week schedule reset","similarity":"Every slot becomes vacant each semester, incumbents reapply, a programming committee reallocates slots according to need, and disputes may be appealed.","remaining_difference":"It resets all slots rather than reclaiming only persistently unused ones.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"KSQD annual participatory schedule review","similarity":"Annual renewal combines performance review, community input, a proposed schedule, public comment, and a complaint pathway; repeated no-shows terminate a show.","remaining_difference":"Its criteria are broader than unused-hour recovery and it does not publish the proposed quantitative outcome threshold.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"3ZZZ and KZZH community-value allocation safeguards","similarity":"These policies combine periodic timeslot review, representation-oriented criteria, incumbent notice, governance approval, and appeals.","remaining_difference":"They do not present a measured before-after utilization claim.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"The only material distinction remaining is the preregistered empirical target—at least a 25% reduction in unused assigned hours while increasing distinct qualified producers without reducing representation or public-service compliance. That is a useful local performance test, but it does not make the scheduling intervention itself differentiated.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Multiple stations already implement the component operations: fixed-term or non-automatic renewal, missed-show triggers, community-value selection, periodic schedule reconstruction, notice, public consultation, governance review, and appeals. This demonstrates technical and administrative feasibility, although local governance and licence constraints still require tailoring.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Recovering genuinely unused hours could improve access and local programming, but the prevalence and magnitude of stranded airtime are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S8"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Regulators and community stations explicitly prioritize participation, diversity, reliable delivery, and schedule review.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":1,"rationale":"No evidence shows that the proposed trigger-and-reassignment process outperforms existing periodic renewal, schedule resets, no-show rules, or participatory reviews.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":1,"rationale":"The intervention's substantive elements are already established practice across several independent stations.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":5,"rationale":"Comparable policies are already operated with ordinary scheduling records and station governance processes.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Station programming committees, managers, and boards generally possess the needed authority, subject to licence obligations and internal appeal procedures.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposed outcomes are measurable, but no baseline nonuse rate, comparison group, effect estimate, or evidence supporting the 25% threshold was found.","source_ids":["S1","S4"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Representation and public-service thresholds could protect underserved audiences, but the proposal does not specify operational weighting or protections against viewpoint-discriminatory reassignment.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The process is administratively light and broadly replicable, but station missions, schedules, licences, and governance arrangements vary substantially.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"A preregistered retrospective baseline and prospective feasibility study across approximately 12–20 community stations and two scheduling cycles.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Participating stations can export slot assignments, actual broadcasts, substitutions, applicant, and compliance records.","Approximately 0.5–1.0 FTE of research and data-management effort is required for 6–9 months.","No major archival digitization or participant compensation program is required."],"source_ids":[]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One station's policy drafting, legal or regulatory review, community consultation, metric definitions, appeal procedure, and scheduling-system configuration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing scheduling software can be configured rather than replaced.","Station staff and board time are the principal costs.","The station already records scheduled and actually broadcast hours."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"First complete reassignment cycle at one station, including notices, applications, scoring, hearings or appeals, schedule transition, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The launch uses existing staff and volunteer governance bodies.","No transmitter, studio, or production-capacity expansion is included.","Producer training costs are limited to newly admitted participants."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"Incremental annual record review, application administration, notices, appeals, and utilization reporting at one station.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The process is integrated into an existing annual or semiannual programming review.","Most committee labor remains volunteer or is absorbed by existing staff roles.","Complex litigation or regulatory proceedings are excluded."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"NO","reason":"Operational sources recognize missed shows and access competition, but none documents the hypothesized persistent grandfathering-driven underuse or its prevalence.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S8"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Programming committees, station managers, councils, and boards already control slot allocation and conduct periodic reviews.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"NO","reason":"The 25% utilization claim is testable, but it tests an already-established scheduling practice rather than a distinct intervention, and no comparator-specific advantage is stated.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A finite multi-station baseline audit can determine whether persistent assigned-hour nonuse exists, whether qualified producers are blocked, and whether current renewal rules already address it.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Station authorities can act, but community-value scoring could affect viewpoint, language, and protected-community representation unless criteria, notice, records, and appeals are specified locally.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The workflow is bounded and uses familiar station processes, but no direct published cost or labor evidence was located; all monetary ranges are assumption-based.","source_ids":[]}},"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a preregistered retrospective audit at 12–20 consenting community stations covering two scheduling cycles. Measure assigned hours not broadcast by the assignee, substitution or automation coverage, repeat nonuse, qualified applications denied for lack of airtime, current renewal and appeal rules, and representation/public-service compliance. Proceed to a matched prospective evaluation only if persistent reclaimable nonuse is common and not already corrected by existing policies.","blocking_evidence":["No direct prevalence estimate for persistently unused grandfathered community-radio slots.","No evidence that qualified producers are regularly denied airtime specifically because nonperforming incumbents retain assignments.","No comparative evidence that the proposed process improves utilization or producer diversity beyond existing periodic review and no-show policies.","No empirical basis for the 25% effect threshold.","No operational definition distinguishing genuinely unused airtime from substituted, automated, emergency, or public-service programming.","No sourced implementation-cost data.","Community-value scoring and representation safeguards are insufficiently operationalized to rule out viewpoint or access harms."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"As written, the hypothesis is not a strict differentiated opportunity. Periodic expiry or non-automatic renewal, reclaiming slots after non-delivery, community-oriented allocation criteria, incumbent notice, schedule review, public input, and appeals all appear in existing community-media practice. Only the exact local trigger definition and preregistered 25% outcome target remain unverified rather than novel.","arm":"DISCARDED_AUDIT","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_DIFFUSION","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":[],"reason":"The preregistered strict differentiated-opportunity endpoint is not satisfied: the specific problem lacks prevalence evidence, while the proposed remedy substantially reproduces established station scheduling practices. The hypothesis may support diffusion or evaluation of known practice, but it cannot qualify as a differentiated opportunity as written."}}