{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_external_evaluation_20260802","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__linguistics_semiotics:PROPOSAL_FIRST:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__linguistics_semiotics","search_queries":["language documentation consultant payment speaker community protocol ethics scheduling","site:elararchive.org language consultants remuneration documentation ethics","site:linguisticsociety.org language documentation consultants compensation ethics","Indigenous language documentation data sovereignty CARE principles governance","language documentation project consultant fees budget Endangered Languages Documentation Programme","language documentation fieldwork paying consultants ethical guidelines speaker compensation","language documentation center scheduling speaker consultants cancellations waitlist","appointment cancellation waitlist automatic fill product official scheduling","site:linguisticsociety.org ethics statement consultants compensation language speakers","site:aiatsis.gov.au code ethics Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander research consent governance language","site:nsf.gov Dynamic Language Infrastructure Documenting Endangered Languages solicitation 2026","site:eldp.net grants budget language consultants fees guidelines","Linguistic Society of America Ethics Statement compensation consultants participants","Linguistic Society America ethics statement endangered language communities 2019","site:linguisticsociety.org \"fair compensation\" consultants","study automated waitlist fill cancelled appointments randomized trial scheduling utilization","appointment waitlist cancellation backfill study outpatient clinic no show idle capacity","same day waitlist fill cancellation slots study healthcare scheduling","\"Enhancing the Performance of Patient Appointment Scheduling\" automated waitlist journal 2025","\"Automated waitlist process\" improve patient wait times appointments DOI"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"NSF 22-615: NSF Dynamic Language Infrastructure–NEH Documenting Endangered Languages (DLI-DEL)","publisher":"U.S. National Science Foundation and National Endowment for the Humanities","url":"https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dli-del-nsf-dynamic-language-infrastructure-neh-documenting/nsf22-615/solicitation","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2022-07-19","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Endangered-language documentation is time-sensitive and institutionally funded.","The program supports fieldwork, recording, analysis, archiving, and community collaboration.","Senior and conference projects could receive up to $450,000 for up to three years."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"ELDP Grants","publisher":"Endangered Languages Documentation Programme","url":"https://grants.eldp.net/en","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026 (current grant-round page)","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["ELDP is an identifiable funder of worldwide endangered-language documentation.","ELDP explicitly welcomes language-community documenters and collaborative projects.","Published grant bands range from rapid grants up to €5,000 and small grants up to €10,000 to major projects up to €300,000."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Ethics","publisher":"Endangered Language Alliance","url":"https://www.elalliance.org/about/how-we-work/ethics","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["An operating language-documentation organization says its work is shaped by community or speaker initiative.","It compensates language consultants for their time.","It requires explicit permission for sharing and recognizes retroactive privacy choices."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"LSA Revised Ethics Statement, Final Version","publisher":"Linguistic Society of America","url":"https://www.lsadc.org/Files/Advocacy/201907_LSA%20Revised%20Ethics%20Statement.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2019-07","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Linguistic research participation must be voluntary at every stage and based on informed consent.","Researchers should consider remuneration and other recognition of participant contributions.","Participants and communities should be consulted about conduct, sharing, archiving, and stewardship.","Collective ownership and legitimate community representation may limit individual authority to share linguistic knowledge."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Code of Ethics","publisher":"Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies","url":"https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-research/code-ethics","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2020-10 (page updated 2022-02-28)","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["AIATSIS provides official ethics guidance for research concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and collections.","Ethical engagement must respect Indigenous values, worldviews, knowledge systems, and responsible pacing.","Community-specific ethics and governance cannot be replaced by a generic utilization objective."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance","publisher":"Global Indigenous Data Alliance","url":"https://www.gida-global.org/careprinciples","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2018-11-08 (principles drafting workshop)","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Indigenous data governance centers collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics.","Greater data availability can conflict with Indigenous rights, historical context, and control.","Any scheduling redesign involving access to Indigenous language data must preserve community authority rather than optimize utilization alone."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Automated Waitlists for Ambulatory Appointment Scheduling: Multisite, Mixed Methods Evaluation","publisher":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","url":"https://www.jmir.org/2026/1/e90091/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2026-07-23","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Automated cancellation backfilling is an implemented scheduling practice across surveyed health systems.","Ninety of 127 surveyed systems reported an automated waitlist; the median reported slot-fill rate was 25%.","High-performing systems reported a 38.8% median fill rate and 36-day median advancement, while maintaining configurable provider limits, slot restrictions, eligibility rules, and opt-out.","Prior authorization, linked appointments, digital inequity, gatekeeping, and capacity constraints limit transferability and impact."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Waitlist—Automatic Cancellation Filling","publisher":"FrontDesk","url":"https://frontdesk.care/products/waitlist","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026 (current page)","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["A commercial product already supports cancellation-triggered waitlist notification and automatic calendar updates.","Existing features include priority, appointment-type and provider filtering, preferences, opt-out, cascading offers, and fill analytics.","The general reclaimable-slot mechanism is commercially established outside language documentation."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"The importance and urgency of language documentation are strongly supported, and cancellation backfilling addresses real stranded capacity in another appointment domain. However, no opened source documents the proposal's defining conjunction at a community language-documentation center: fixed nontransferable paid speaker blocks, unused periods, compatible approved demand, willing consultants, and a rule that alone prohibits reassignment. The proposed domain-specific problem therefore remains a plausible but unverified local hypothesis.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"NSF/NEH and ELDP are identifiable funders expressing demand for timely, collaborative language documentation, while the Endangered Language Alliance is an identifiable operating organization that compensates consultants and manages permissions. None expresses a need for reclaimable consultation slots or commits to adopting, authorizing, funding, or supplying records for this proposal. The actual community council, scheduling authority, data steward, and center are unidentified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Automated ambulatory-care waitlists","similarity":"Released appointment capacity is offered to eligible waiting users; implementations use configurable eligibility, provider limits, restricted slot classes, notification, acceptance, and performance monitoring.","remaining_difference":"Medical scheduling does not establish feasibility under collective language-data authority, consultant expertise and identity constraints, community priorities, or the proposed protected-minimum allocation.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"FrontDesk automatic cancellation filling","similarity":"Commercial first-party documentation describes immediate cancellation detection, filtered waitlists, opt-out, offer cascading, automatic booking, and fill analytics.","remaining_difference":"It is a general health-practice product with first-to-confirm allocation and no demonstrated community-governance, research-ethics, data-permission, workload, protected-minimum, or concentration controls.","source_ids":["S8"]},{"name":"Endangered Language Alliance ethical documentation practice","similarity":"It demonstrates compensated language-consultant work governed by speaker/community initiative, permissions, access controls, and withdrawal-sensitive ethics.","remaining_difference":"The source describes no fixed allocation blocks, cancellation queue, nontransferability wedge, reclaimable pool, or utilization problem.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},{"name":"CARE and AIATSIS governance frameworks","similarity":"They provide the protected-purpose layer the proposal would need: collective control, consent, responsibility, ethics, cultural respect, and legitimate authority.","remaining_difference":"They are governance guidance rather than scheduling or allocation mechanisms and provide no evidence that reassignment is desired or permissible in any specific community.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"At a specifically identified, jointly authorizing community language-documentation center, among voluntarily released paid consultation periods that satisfy predeclared consultant availability, affirmative session-specific consent, expertise, workload, research-approval, data-access, protected-minimum, priority, and concentration gates, a reclaimable-pool rule will increase completed eligible consultations and reduce waiting relative to fixed nontransferability without materially worsening refusals, fatigue, coercion indicators, allocation concentration, complaints, data-permission incidents, documentation quality, or community-priority fulfillment. The claim is falsified if no such overlap exists, administrative verification consumes the recoverable value, completion or waiting outcomes do not improve, or any protected-purpose threshold is breached.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The core scheduling functions—detecting released slots, filtering eligible requests, offering a slot, recording acceptance, updating a calendar, and measuring fill—are established and technically modest. Published implementations show that eligibility restrictions and provider/session limits can be retained. Feasibility is nevertheless conditional: scheduling records are proprietary and potentially identifying in small communities; compatibility cannot safely be inferred from coarse labels; individual consent does not replace collective authority; ethics and data permissions may be project-specific; and a real center's governance body, workflow, software, staffing, and legal jurisdiction have not been identified. A manual shadow review is technically feasible, but access and authority require a partner.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"On a 1–5 scale, recovering scarce fluent-speaker time could matter because documentation is time-sensitive, but prevalence, recoverable hours, downstream quality, and realized benefit are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Funders and practitioners visibly value collaborative documentation and ethical consultant work, but no stakeholder expresses demand for this scheduling change.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Waitlist backfilling can recover perishable slots and shorten waits in an adjacent domain, but incremental advantage over staff calling, better advance-release practice, matching improvements, or added capacity is untested here.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The community-governed, consent- and permission-gated application is distinguishable from generic waitlists, although its mechanism is established and no world-novelty conclusion is supported.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A spreadsheet-based shadow review and manual pilot require ordinary scheduling and audit capabilities; the difficult elements are governance and reliable eligibility data rather than novel engineering.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Relevant authority principles are clear, but no actual center, community council, ethics body, data steward, or governing instrument has been identified.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate supplies a bounded analysis design, but the essential evidence is an unidentified center's proprietary scheduling and governance data and cannot be resolved by further generic web search.","source_ids":["S3","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Protected minimums, affirmative consent, workload limits, permission gates, concentration controls, audit logging, expiry, and rollback align well with external ethics guidance if jointly authorized and genuinely enforced.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"The software pattern scales, but linguistic expertise, collective governance, cultural protocols, consent practices, and data permissions are community-specific; evidence from easy cases should not be generalized.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One authorized center; governance and data-access preparation plus a de-identified 12-week retrospective shadow review, eligibility coding, sensitivity analysis, community-review honoraria, and a short decision report.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing records contain timestamps, cancellations, waitlisted requests, consultant availability, compensation status, workload, approvals, and permission metadata or defensible proxies.","Approximately 120–300 combined analyst, scheduler, governance, ethics, and community-review hours are required.","No new participant contact, software integration, or language-data access occurs.","ELDP rapid and small grants are contextual project-budget anchors, not price quotes for this review."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S6"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and approval of a one-center manual pilot: operating policy, consent scripts, eligibility matrix, protected-minimum and concentration rules, audit log, staff training, privacy review, and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The pilot uses existing calendar tools plus a controlled manual register rather than custom integration.","The community council, consultants, ethics reviewer, and data steward are compensated for design and review time.","No increase in workload caps and no capital equipment are included."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate and evaluate an authorized 12- to 24-week one-center pilot, including scheduler coverage, consultant compensation for additional completed sessions, secure notification/configuration work, monitoring, independent evaluation, and incident response.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch follows a positive shadow review and separate joint approval.","Costs include resource-equivalent staff and governance time, not merely software fees.","A secure integration or substantial manual coordination may be required.","The band remains below the scale of a multi-year major documentation program but above small-grant experiments."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One-center steady-state scheduling administration, secure communications or software, quarterly equity and safety audits, governance review, training, and incident handling, excluding ordinary compensation already budgeted for baseline consultation hours.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing scheduling infrastructure is retained.","The number of released slots is modest and staff review remains part-time.","Annual community governance and ethics review is required.","Custom enterprise software development and center-wide capacity expansion are excluded."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"NO","reason":"External evidence supports urgent language documentation and the generic cancellation-backfill mechanism, but no direct source verifies that nontransferability alone strands otherwise authorized and mutually acceptable language-consultation periods at any center.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S7"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Credible funders and an operating documentation organization are identifiable, but no specific adopter or competent community/ethics/data authority has expressed need for, or authority over, this pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal isolates nontransferability after explicit exclusions and states comparative completion, waiting, administrative-burden, distributional, consent, quality, and governance falsifiers.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A single-center, fixed 12-week, no-contact retrospective shadow review is bounded, reversible, comparator-based, and capable of finding zero eligible overlaps.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The design recognizes consent, workload, privacy, community authority, and data sovereignty, but no real authority, jurisdiction, data-access agreement, de-identification assessment, or incident threshold has been secured. In a small community, scheduling metadata may remain identifiable.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The scopes and bands are bounded resource-equivalent estimates with grant-scale anchors, but no partner workflow, record volume, wage schedule, consultant rate, software quote, integration assessment, or governance-cost estimate is available.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"After identifying one willing center, obtain written authorization from its competent community or speaker council, ethics reviewer, and data steward for a no-contact analysis. Preregister a 12-week window, row-level inclusion gates, protected outcomes, and the fixed-allocation comparator. Have an authorized analyst link released periods to contemporaneous waiting requests inside the center's secure environment; report counts and rates of (a) releases, (b) gate-eligible overlaps blocked solely by nontransferability, and (c) exclusions by reason, with sensitivity analyses for cutoff, workload cap, protected minimum, priority, and concentration limits. Include analyst and scheduler time as an administrative-cost comparator. Falsify the problem if zero periods pass every gate or if nontransferability is not the final blocker; reject advancement if expected recovered value does not exceed verification cost or authority/privacy review identifies an unacceptable risk. Only a positive, jointly reviewed result can justify a separately approved opt-in pilot.","blocking_evidence":["No externally documented instance of the exact nontransferable language-consultation-slot problem.","No named center, community or speaker council, scheduling authority, ethics reviewer, or data steward willing to participate.","No written evidence that the relevant authority may retrospectively link scheduling, approval, consent, expertise, and permission metadata.","No estimate of released periods, eligible concurrent demand, recoverable consultation-hours, waiting-time reduction, or incidence by project/community priority.","No local assessment of whether supposedly de-identified scheduling metadata can identify consultants or sensitive projects.","No measured cost of eligibility verification, staff coordination, notifications, governance review, or consultant compensation.","No comparator evidence against simpler options such as earlier cancellation cutoffs, manual calling, compatibility-data improvement, or capacity expansion.","No locally approved thresholds for fatigue, coercion, concentration, complaints, documentation quality, permission incidents, or rollback."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search found established automated waitlist and cancellation-backfill mechanisms, plus established linguistic and Indigenous governance safeguards, but no direct source describing their exact combination in a community language-documentation consultation center. That absence is not evidence of world novelty. World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured.","arm":"PROPOSAL_FIRST","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":true,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Identify one real partner center and the competent community, ethics, scheduling, and data authorities.","Secure written permission for a no-contact, in-environment retrospective shadow review.","Demonstrate at least one—and report the rate of—periods where every substantive gate overlaps and nontransferability is the sole blocker.","Measure administrative verification cost and compare the proposal with manual calling, earlier release rules, improved matching data, and capacity expansion.","Approve privacy and re-identification controls for small-community scheduling metadata.","Predefine protected-purpose metrics and numerical halt thresholds with consultants and community authorities.","Obtain local resource estimates or quotes for analysis, setup, pilot operations, and recurring governance."],"reason":"Web research establishes that language documentation matters, compensated and permission-sensitive consultant work exists, ethical authority must be community-aware, and cancellation backfilling is technically established. It does not establish the candidate's local problem, adopter pull, authority, prevalence, net benefit, or cost. The decisive next evidence requires a real partner's proprietary scheduling records and governance approval, so it cannot be completed through bounded web research."}}