{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__linguistics_semiotics","arm":"RETRIEVAL_FIRST","round_index":0,"hypotheses":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","title":"Load-priced phonetics laboratories","problem":"Flat booking rules produce peak queues while recording booths and equipment sit idle off-peak.","affected_stakeholder":"Phonetics researchers, students, and priority clinical users","workflow_boundary":"From laboratory-slot request through completed recording session","failure_mode":"Time-based rationing crowds out high-value urgent work and leaves off-peak capacity unused.","unit_of_analysis":"Bookable laboratory-hour","causal_lever":"Vary booking credits by forecast load while granting protected users nontransferable priority credits.","archetype_mapping":"Repairs a timing-allocation wedge without expanding capacity or removing equitable-access safeguards.","expected_value":"Shorter peak waits, greater off-peak utilization, and more completed studies per equipment-hour.","falsifiable_claim":"A one-term pilot will reduce median peak wait by at least 20% and raise off-peak occupancy by at least 15%, without reducing priority-user completion rates.","diversity_rationale":"Tests a dynamic capacity-price lever on physical research infrastructure rather than an approval, eligibility, matching, or licensing rule.","mechanism_slugs":["congestion_or_capacity_pricing_adjustment","impact_assessment_table"],"search_questions":["Do phonetics laboratories exhibit simultaneous peak queues and off-peak vacancy?","Which credit-pricing designs preserve access for unfunded and priority users?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","title":"Risk-tiered reuse approval for speech recordings","problem":"Low-risk reuse of consented, de-identified speech data often repeats full collection-level approval steps.","affected_stakeholder":"Corpus researchers, ethics reviewers, and recorded speakers","workflow_boundary":"From secondary-use proposal to authorized corpus access","failure_mode":"Duplicative review and open-ended routing delay valid reuse without adding material privacy or consent protection.","unit_of_analysis":"Secondary-use application","causal_lever":"Create a single-intake expedited lane for predefined low-risk uses while retaining full review for identity, consent, or community-risk exceptions.","archetype_mapping":"Separates procedural drag from substantive human-subject and speaker-rights safeguards.","expected_value":"Faster responsible corpus reuse and lower reviewer workload without weaker consent compliance.","falsifiable_claim":"Eligible applications will reach decisions at least 30% faster, with no increase in material consent, privacy, or access-control deviations over twelve months.","diversity_rationale":"Targets procedural delay in ethical governance, with applications rather than capacity slots as the unit and safeguarding rather than pricing as the core design problem.","mechanism_slugs":["distortion_reduction_review","permit_or_approval_streamlining","regulatory_simplification_pilot"],"search_questions":["Which secondary speech-data reviews duplicate checks already completed at collection?","Can low-risk cases be identified prospectively without excluding community-specific harms?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","title":"Steward-defined tiers for restricted language archives","problem":"All-or-nothing archive restrictions can block legitimate educational or revitalization uses that community stewards would permit under narrower conditions.","affected_stakeholder":"Heritage-language communities, archive stewards, educators, and researchers","workflow_boundary":"From access request to authorized use of a restricted collection","failure_mode":"Coarse eligibility and embargo rules reject safe uses or leave culturally valuable recordings dormant.","unit_of_analysis":"Collection-access decision","causal_lever":"Replace binary access with steward-authored purpose, identity, and dissemination tiers plus revocation triggers.","archetype_mapping":"Reopens stranded cultural capacity while preserving sovereignty, sacred-content restrictions, and speaker consent.","expected_value":"More community-approved reuse, teaching, and revitalization from already preserved materials.","falsifiable_claim":"For participating collections, tiered rules will increase approved legitimate uses by at least 25% without increasing substantiated misuse or community overrides.","diversity_rationale":"Examines a rights-sensitive eligibility rule governing cultural assets, distinct from prices, queues, review speed, or bilateral matching.","mechanism_slugs":["quota_or_allocation_rule_review","impact_assessment_table","regulatory_simplification_pilot"],"search_questions":["How often do archive stewards reject requests solely because available permissions are binary?","Which access attributes can communities specify and audit reliably?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","title":"Clearinghouse for corpus–annotator matching","problem":"Funded language datasets remain unannotated while qualified community annotators and specialists remain undiscovered or underbooked.","affected_stakeholder":"Language communities, corpus teams, and specialist annotators","workflow_boundary":"From annotation need specification through accepted paid assignment","failure_mode":"Fragmented networks and incompatible skill descriptions prevent willing, adequately funded parties from pairing.","unit_of_analysis":"Attempted dataset–annotator match","causal_lever":"Pool opportunities and represent dialect, task, availability, consent, and compensation compatibility in a governed matching process.","archetype_mapping":"Repairs a thin-market allocation wedge where supply and funded demand coexist; it does not presume an underlying labor shortage.","expected_value":"More completed annotations, better expertise fit, and less dormant corpus funding.","falsifiable_claim":"Compared with existing recruitment, the clearinghouse will raise qualified accepted matches by at least 20% without increasing withdrawal or compensation-dispute rates.","diversity_rationale":"Uses bilateral compatibility matching and match attempts as the unit, unlike the unilateral allocation, pricing, approval, and licensing hypotheses.","mechanism_slugs":["matching_improvement_program","impact_assessment_table"],"search_questions":["Is failed corpus annotation primarily a matching problem rather than insufficient pay or specialist scarcity?","Which compatibility fields predict durable, mutually acceptable assignments?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","title":"Tiered licensing for digital linguistic resources","problem":"Flat institutional prices for corpora, lexicons, or sign databases exclude small programs and community users despite negligible marginal access cost.","affected_stakeholder":"Independent linguists, small institutions, language educators, community organizations, and resource custodians","workflow_boundary":"From license inquiry through lawful resource access and renewal","failure_mode":"A coarse fee bundles cost recovery and rights protection into a price that suppresses beneficial low-scale use.","unit_of_analysis":"License account-year","causal_lever":"Introduce usage- and capacity-tiered licenses with community waivers while retaining provenance, redistribution, and contributor-rights controls.","archetype_mapping":"Reduces an administered fee wedge while preserving sustainable stewardship revenue and protected intellectual or speaker rights.","expected_value":"Broader lawful use, fewer unauthorized substitutes, and additional low-scale licensing revenue.","falsifiable_claim":"A tiered offer will increase paid or waived eligible accounts by at least 30% while keeping net stewardship revenue nonnegative and substantiated rights violations unchanged.","diversity_rationale":"Tests redesign of a recurring digital-access fee using account-years, contrasting with physical capacity, approvals, archive eligibility, and labor matching.","mechanism_slugs":["tariff_fee_or_toll_redesign","cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","impact_assessment_table"],"search_questions":["Do current linguistic-resource fees exceed willingness to pay among otherwise eligible low-scale users?","What revenue floor and rights controls are necessary for sustainable tiered access?"]}]}