{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__material_culture_museum_studies:P5:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__material_culture_museum_studies","search_queries":["museum collection management temporary restriction use hold review date collections database policy","Spectrum collections trust use of collections procedure restrictions authorization museum","museum collection access restrictions review periodically policy","museum collections management system restriction flag expiry review date","site:archivesspace.github.io rights restriction end date official documentation","site:accessioning.gitbook.io temporary restrictions end date collections museum system","museum collections management software restriction date review workflow access","museum collections review backlog inaccessible objects documentation research","ArchivesSpace rights statements restriction start end dates documentation","ArchivesSpace conditions governing access restriction end date","AtoM archival description restriction end date access rights official","museum software access restriction dates collections management system","site:nps.gov Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act duty of care access research exhibition consent 2024 museum","site:ecfr.gov 43 CFR 10 museum research access consent Native American remains cultural items","ICOM Code of Ethics museum access culturally sensitive material restrictions official","museum source communities access restrictions collections policy official","site:bls.gov OEWS archivists curators museum technicians 2025 median wage","site:bls.gov occupational outlook archivists curators museum workers 2024 median pay","museum collections management system pricing official PastPerfect 2026","CollectionSpace museum software implementation cost official"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Collections Information and Access Policy","publisher":"National Museums NI","url":"https://cms.nationalmuseumsni.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/Collections%20Information%20and%20Access%20Policy.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2024-12-04","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The policy was approved by National Museums NI's Senior Management Team and identifies the Board's statutory collections responsibilities.","National Museums NI aims to make collections accessible to the widest possible audiences and actively remove or minimize barriers.","Current collections information, audit trails, trained staff, and collections-management systems are treated as necessary for access and accountability.","National Museums NI reports a documentation plan addressing backlog and other gaps as resources permit.","Managers are responsible for implementing the collections-management framework, and the institution conducts scheduled collection audits."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"ACRL/SAA Joint Statement on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries","publisher":"U.S. National Archives and Records Administration","url":"https://www.archives.gov/nhprc/administer/access.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2009-07","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The statement expressly includes museums, artwork, and historical artifacts within its scope.","Repositories should state restrictions and their duration, encourage specific time limits, periodically reevaluate restricted material, and remove restrictions no longer required.","Legal, institutional, donor, confidentiality, physical-security, and handling protections remain legitimate constraints on access."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Use of collections — Spectrum 5.1","publisher":"Collections Trust","url":"https://collectionstrust.org.uk/spectrum/procedures/use-of-collections-spectrum-5-0/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2022","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Spectrum provides a museum-standard procedure for managing and recording uses of objects, data, images, and reproductions.","The procedure includes assessing and authorizing proposed uses and recording each use.","Spectrum supplies adaptable policy questions, minimum requirements, and a workflow rather than prescribing one software product."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Collections Management Policy","publisher":"American Alliance of Museums","url":"https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional-practices/collections-management-policy/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A museum collections-management policy should define how collections are made accessible and clearly allocate responsible roles.","Required elements include documentation, inventory, conservation, access and use, ethical issues, and decision authority.","The policy should bear the approval date of the governing authority."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Part 5: Managing collection information","publisher":"Office of the Auditor-General New Zealand","url":"https://ao.parliament.nz/2006/heritage/part5.htm","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2006","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A government performance audit found substantial undocumented holdings, incomplete or unreliable records, cataloguing backlogs, limited use of electronic databases, and unfinished follow-up work in audited museums.","Accurate collection information enables museums to account for objects, support research and exhibitions, and make best use of holdings.","The audit recommends standard procedures, periodic inventories, action plans, realistic timetables, and additional staff where necessary.","The audit does not identify or quantify stale temporary use-hold flags specifically."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Rights — AtoM Documentation, Version 2.8","publisher":"Artefactual Systems / Access to Memory","url":"https://accesstomemory.org/en/docs/2.8/user-manual/add-edit-content/rights/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"Version 2.8; undated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["An operational cultural-heritage information product already records restriction basis, rights holder, act-specific permissions, allow/disallow/conditional status, notes, and start and end dates.","AtoM distinguishes an unknown or open-ended right by allowing a blank end date.","Rights can be inherited, combined, edited by authorized users, and translated into access behavior, demonstrating technical feasibility of structured restriction metadata."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums 2026","publisher":"International Council of Museums","url":"https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Code-of-Ethics_2026_EN-1.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2026-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Museums should expand access while safeguarding collections, confidential information, legal obligations, Indigenous rights, and data sovereignty.","Museums should involve communities, including Indigenous Peoples, in decisions about their heritage and seek free, prior, and informed consent.","Sensitive and sacred heritage requires appropriate protocols, and Indigenous heritage and traditional knowledge should be used only with free, prior, and informed consent.","Museum leaders should implement policies, regular monitoring, preventive care, and consultation with relevant external expertise."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Occupational Employment and Wages — May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.htm","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-05-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The May 2025 mean wage was $31.71 per hour and $65,960 annually for archivists, curators, and museum technicians.","Mean annual wages were $70,640 for archivists, $71,560 for curators, and $57,410 for museum technicians and conservators.","These wage benchmarks support resource-equivalent labor estimates but do not include museum-specific overhead, legal review, software customization, or community compensation."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Official audits and an identifiable museum document incomplete records, backlogs, resource limitations, and the connection between current documentation and access. Professional guidance explicitly requires periodic reevaluation and removal of restrictions that are no longer required, indicating that restriction persistence is a recognized governance concern. However, none of the eight opened sources directly measures museum-created temporary object-use holds persisting after their basis ended, attributable denials, or their prevalence. The exact problem therefore remains an empirically plausible but unverified local condition.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"National Museums NI is an identifiable potential adopter with an SMT-approved policy, a responsible Board and managers, an existing collections-management system, a documentation-backlog plan, and an expressed objective to remove access barriers while preserving care. AAM guidance also places collections-access policy and decision authority under governing-authority approval. No source records National Museums NI or another museum requesting this registry, committing staff, funding a pilot, or accepting the proposed expiry rule.","source_ids":["S1","S4"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Time-limited and periodically reevaluated access restrictions","similarity":"The ACRL/SAA statement already calls for stated restriction durations, specific time limits, periodic review, and removal when restrictions are no longer required, and expressly includes museums and historical artifacts.","remaining_difference":"It does not prescribe an object-level registry, mandatory owner, evidence-backed reauthorization, two-person clearance, or a taxonomy separating temporary administrative holds from independently protected restrictions.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"AtoM structured rights and restriction records","similarity":"AtoM already models basis, rights holder, act-specific permission, conditional/disallowed status, notes, and start/end dates in an actionable cultural-heritage system.","remaining_difference":"It is archival-description software and does not supply the proposed museum-object reauthorization queue, review reminders, competent-authority escalation, or clearance verification.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"National Museums NI current-information, audit-trail, and scheduled-audit practice","similarity":"The institution uses collections systems as systems of record, requires traceable edits, assigns staff responsibility, maintains a documentation plan, and conducts scheduled audits to support access and accountability.","remaining_difference":"The published policy does not disclose an expiry-and-reauthorization workflow for temporary object-use holds or evidence that stale flags cause denials.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"Spectrum Use of collections procedure","similarity":"Spectrum already requires museums to assess, authorize, and record object uses under an adaptable standardized workflow.","remaining_difference":"The cited procedure governs proposed uses; it does not require temporary denial flags to expire, be reauthorized, or escalate by authority category.","source_ids":["S3"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Among a museum unit's genuinely temporary, museum-controlled administrative holds, requiring a named owner, basis, use scope, review date, evidence-backed reauthorization or escalation, and two-person clearance will—relative to request-triggered case review and one-time cleanup—increase objects returned to ordinary use review and completed legitimate uses within 12 months without increasing serious collection, legal, cultural, privacy, rights, provenance, security, or conservation incidents, authority-classification errors, inequitable review, or unacceptable staff workload.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The data structure is technically ordinary: comparable systems already store restriction basis, act, status, notes, rights holder, and start/end dates, while museum standards already require use authorization, records, audit trails, and allocated authority. A read-only audit is low-risk and can be implemented with exported records or a separate register. Feasibility is constrained by documented incomplete data and staff scarcity; the museum's actual CMS configuration, reminder/workflow capability, security model, local legal and donor obligations, competent-authority taxonomy, community participation arrangements, and review capacity have not been verified. ICOM standards support the proposal's exclusions and affirmative community authority rather than automatic lapse.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Restoring legitimate study, display, imaging, or loan opportunities can advance public and research value, but the number of affected holds and downstream uses is unknown.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S7"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"An identifiable museum expresses access, documentation, and barrier-reduction needs and has named approving and implementing bodies, but no institution has expressed demand for this specific registry or pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S4"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Scheduled restriction review, time limits, structured rights dates, use authorization, and audit trails already exist in guidance, products, and institutional practice. Advantage over those practices depends on the untested enforcement and two-person-clearance combination.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The museum-object administrative-hold boundary and protected-authority taxonomy are a specific adaptation, but the central expiry-and-review concept substantially instantiates established practice.","source_ids":["S2","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The required fields and permissions are conventional database capabilities, and the audit can run outside the live CMS. Integration effort and reminder/escalation support remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Museum governing and senior-management bodies credibly control collections policy, while managers and specialists implement it. Local delegations and community, donor, legal, and rights-holder authority still require institution-specific mapping.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"A bounded audit design exists and records are observable in principle, but no prevalence, blocked-use baseline, classification reliability, workload, or outcome data have been produced.","source_ids":["S1","S5"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":2,"rationale":"More equitable access and reduced dependence on requester influence could benefit less-resourced researchers and communities, but no evidence identifies a safety-net population or distribution of recovered access.","source_ids":["S1","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The governance pattern is software-agnostic and compatible with common standards, but each museum requires local authority categories, policy approval, data cleanup, community arrangements, and staffing.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"Read-only audit of up to 100 records, two independent paper classifications, disagreement review, workload logging, baseline denied-use extraction, and a short report; no live record changes.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 120-180 total staff hours.","2025 mean occupational wage of $31.71 per hour is converted to roughly $44 per resource-equivalent hour with 40% benefits and overhead.","Existing staff can securely export or inspect records without vendor development.","Extensive outside legal review, travel, and community consultation are not required for the read-only prevalence audit."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Approve policy and authority taxonomy; configure fields, roles, reports, reminders, and audit logging in an existing CMS or companion registry; migrate pilot holds; train reviewers; and prepare monitoring and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 250-700 internal specialist, policy, training, and IT hours.","The museum retains its current CMS and does not procure or replace an enterprise platform.","Configuration is possible without a major custom integration.","Community-authority design and legal review are bounded to one collection unit and compensated where required."],"source_ids":["S1","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One-year pilot in one collection unit, including registrar and specialist review, quality assurance, community or rights-holder engagement where applicable, help-desk support, monitoring, evaluation, and contingency.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 0.6-1.5 fully loaded staff-year equivalents across collections, conservation, rights/legal, IT, evaluation, and management.","The pilot remains limited to specified administrative categories.","No collection-wide data remediation or CMS replacement is included.","Workload and consultation demand could move the estimate materially within the band."],"source_ids":["S1","S5","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Post-pilot operation for one unit: reminders, reauthorization reviews, exception handling, audit sampling, reporting, training refresh, and minor system support.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 0.15-0.45 fully loaded staff-year equivalents.","Review volume is stable and most holds are well classified at creation.","Enterprise software licensing and major data remediation are excluded.","Expansion to heterogeneous collections would require a new estimate."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"External sources verify museum documentation gaps and an established need to reevaluate restrictions, but do not directly show stale temporary object-use holds, their incidence, or attributable blocked uses.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"National Museums NI is a credible potential adopter with an SMT-approved collections-information and access policy, a statutory Board, responsible managers, an existing CMS, and an expressed barrier-reduction objective. Interest in this specific pilot is not verified.","source_ids":["S1","S4"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The claim can compare the proposed enforced reauthorization workflow against request-triggered review and one-time cleanup using justified clearances, downstream legitimate uses, reviewer effort, classification error, equity, and adverse-event outcomes.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A deidentified, read-only, 100-record paper audit is limited in scope, makes no access changes, includes explicit comparators, and has stated falsifiers.","source_ids":["S1","S5"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The proposal correctly excludes legal, cultural, donor, provenance, privacy, rights, security, hazard, and conservation restrictions from automatic lapse, consistent with ICOM guidance. However, the local authority taxonomy, delegations, consent requirements, and ability to reverse an erroneous clearance have not been verified at an adopting museum.","source_ids":["S4","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four ranges are broad resource-equivalent estimates grounded in current occupational wages and explicit workload, overhead, existing-system, and scope assumptions. Vendor customization and consultation demand remain low-confidence variables but fit within the stated bands for a one-unit pilot.","source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"At one willing museum, export a deidentified census of active holds from one collection unit and draw up to 100 records, stratified into (A) temporary administrative holds missing an owner or review date, (B) comparable temporary holds with an owner/review date or a recent documented closure, and (C) protected or indeterminate holds used only as a safety-classification comparator. Two reviewers—a registrar and the relevant subject specialist—independently classify basis, authority, affected uses, evidence, work completion, review history, and any denied or abandoned request. Compare prevalence of apparently resolved-but-active holds, attributable blocked uses, classification agreement, missing-data rates, and minutes per record across strata and against the prior 12 months of request-triggered reviews. Make no record or access changes. Falsify the problem if no sampled hold lacks a live basis and no use was blocked solely by persistence; block the taxonomy if agreement is below 0.80 Cohen's kappa or any protected restriction is classified as expiry-eligible; block a pilot if median review exceeds 60 minutes per record, competent authority cannot be assigned, or hypothetical clearance would bypass another required approval.","blocking_evidence":["No direct estimate of the prevalence of stale temporary administrative holds in any museum collection unit.","No verified count of denied or abandoned uses attributable solely to persistence of such a hold.","No baseline showing how often request-triggered review already clears holds or how long it takes.","No adopting museum's signed interest, assigned owner, committed review capacity, or confirmed budget.","No institution-specific authority map covering legal, cultural, donor, provenance, privacy, rights, security, hazard, conservation, and overlapping restrictions.","No verification that the target CMS can implement reminders, role restrictions, evidence links, escalation, and immutable audit history without material customization.","No inter-reviewer classification reliability or workload evidence.","No live comparative evidence that scheduled reauthorization increases legitimate uses without defensive renewal, inequity, unauthorized access, or protected-interest harm."],"research_disposition":"PROBLEM_PREVALENCE_STUDY","world_novelty_boundary":"This assessment searched and opened exactly eight direct web sources across government, museum, professional-standard, and product-documentation publishers. It establishes substantial prior art for time-limited and periodically reviewed restrictions, structured restriction dates, collection-use authorization, audit trails, and governing-authority policies. It does not establish exhaustive world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact; those remain unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Produce the deidentified 100-record audit with stratified comparators and a denominator for all active holds in the unit.","Quantify stale-hold prevalence, attributable blocked uses, baseline request-triggered clearance, review time, and missing-data rates.","Demonstrate at least 0.80 inter-reviewer agreement with zero protected restrictions classified as administratively expiry-eligible.","Obtain institution-specific written confirmation of decision authority, protected categories, consent requirements, rollback authority, and a willing pilot owner.","Verify target-system workflow capability and obtain a scoped configuration estimate.","If prevalence is non-zero and taxonomy is safe, pre-register a bounded live comparison against request-triggered review with adverse-event, equity, workload, defensive-renewal, and downstream-use endpoints."],"reason":"Bounded web research resolves the standards, product analogue, adopter plausibility, technical concept, safeguards, and broad costs, but cannot determine whether stale temporary holds exist locally or whether the intervention improves outcomes. Those questions require proprietary collection records, staff classification, institution-specific authority review, and ultimately live comparative testing; therefore the required disposition is an empirical-research stop rather than further web research."},"proposal_index":5}