{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__material_culture_museum_studies","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"dwl-museum-temporary-use-hold-reauthorization","proposal_index":5,"version":0,"title":"Expiry-and-Reauthorization Registry for Temporary Collection Use Holds","problem":"A museum can place an internal use hold on an object while cataloging discrepancies, short-term conservation work, exhibit preparation, location verification, or another bounded issue is resolved. If the collections system records the hold without an owner, review date, evidentiary basis, or distinct authority category, it can persist after its initiating condition may have ended. Staff then continue denying handling, study, display, photography, or loan requests because the flag remains active. Legal, cultural, rights-based, and safety restrictions may be fully justified; the potentially avoidable wedge is indefinite persistence of temporary administrative holds that have not been reauthorized.","actors":["Registrars and collections managers","Conservators","Curators and exhibition teams","Museum researchers and visiting scholars","Educators and public-program staff","Digital-imaging staff","Source communities and cultural authorities","Rights, privacy, provenance, ethics, and legal reviewers","Museum governing body"],"observable_state":"Within one collection unit, the museum can observe each active use-hold flag, its recorded reason, originating authority, creation date, named owner, review date, supporting evidence, subsequent work or condition records, denied or abandoned use requests, and any later clearance that was not reflected in the system. Unknown or incomplete records remain unknown rather than being classified as obsolete.","consequence":"An object may remain unavailable for otherwise permissible study, interpretation, display, imaging, or loan even after a temporary administrative concern has been resolved, producing foregone collection use without a continuing protective benefit. Conversely, removing a restriction because its documentation is old or incomplete could violate cultural authority, rights, privacy, law, donor terms, provenance controls, or object-safety requirements.","affected_objective":"Restore legitimate use of collection objects blocked only by unsupported persistence of temporary administrative holds while preserving every current conservation, legal, ethical, cultural, privacy, provenance, donor, and rights-based restriction.","intervention":"Create a governed registry that assigns every new use hold an authority category, stated basis, owner, permitted and prohibited uses, evidence requirement, review date, and disposition rule. Pilot the registry in one collection unit for one year. Only museum-created temporary administrative holds within delegated institutional authority receive an expiry: at the review date, the responsible owner must clear the hold, reauthorize it with current evidence and a new date, or escalate it to the competent authority. No hold is removed merely because its documentation is missing. Holds grounded in source-community or cultural authority, law, rights, privacy, donor terms, provenance uncertainty, repatriation, hazardous material, security, or unresolved conservation risk never lapse automatically and require affirmative clearance from their authorized decision-maker. Before any pilot hold is removed, a registrar and the relevant subject specialist conduct a two-person verification. All normal approvals for the proposed object use still apply after clearance.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Distortion Map","domain_realization":"The review traces each object-use denial to a specific hold and separates the hold's initiating protection from persistence caused by absent ownership, review dates, or reauthorization."},{"archetype_element":"Protected Constraint Safeguard","domain_realization":"Cultural authority, legal obligations, rights, privacy, donor terms, provenance, repatriation, hazards, security, and conservation risks require affirmative competent clearance and never expire by administrative default."},{"archetype_element":"Surplus Estimate","domain_realization":"The assessment counts feasible uses blocked solely by unrevalidated administrative holds, staff review costs, contextual or access value potentially recovered, and harms avoided by retained restrictions, with uncertainties and contested cultural values kept explicit."},{"archetype_element":"Affected-Party Incidence Map","domain_realization":"Effects are recorded for collection staff, requesters, source communities, rights holders, represented people, borrowers, audiences, and units that assume review or monitoring burdens."},{"archetype_element":"Redesign Lever","domain_realization":"Indefinite temporary flags become owned, evidenced, use-specific holds with scheduled reauthorization, while protected restrictions remain clearance-based rather than time-based."},{"archetype_element":"Distributional Review","domain_realization":"The museum tests whether review attention favors objects sought by prominent curators or researchers and whether communities whose interests are not visible in the database receive meaningful authority and notice."},{"archetype_element":"Behavioral Response Model","domain_realization":"Monitoring anticipates defensive reauthorization, overly broad escalation, strategic relabeling of holds, premature clearance pressure, reviewer overload, and repeated recreation of cleared flags."},{"archetype_element":"Implementation Boundary","domain_realization":"The pilot covers one collection unit and only specified temporary administrative hold categories; it does not alter other restrictions or authorize any underlying use."},{"archetype_element":"Monitoring and Rebound Check","domain_realization":"The museum tracks reviews, clearances, reauthorizations, escalations, subsequent use decisions, adverse events, complaints, recreated holds, workload, and disparities in which objects receive review."},{"archetype_element":"Rollback or Adjustment Rule","domain_realization":"Clearance activity pauses if authority classification, verification, workload, or protected-outcome triggers fail; affected records revert to held status pending competent review."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"distortion_reduction_review","role":"Determines whether a hold still protects a live interest, has become unsupported administrative persistence, or lacks enough evidence to classify safely.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this diagnostic, age or poor metadata could be mistaken for proof that a restriction is obsolete."},{"mechanism_slug":"sunset_clause_review","role":"Provides the core governance change by requiring temporary administrative holds to be cleared, evidenced and renewed, or escalated at a scheduled date rather than persisting silently.","counterfactual_removal":"Without scheduled reauthorization, temporary holds would retain the same persistence default and review would continue to depend on a requester or staff member noticing each case."},{"mechanism_slug":"impact_assessment_table","role":"Records each affected party, anticipated gain or harm, protected interest, decision authority, uncertainty, and monitoring trigger for every proposed clearance category.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the incidence table, recovered object use could conceal cultural, privacy, rights, staff-workload, or distributional harms."},{"mechanism_slug":"cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","role":"Compares potentially recovered collection uses with audit work, system changes, review burdens, residual risks, and nonmonetary protected interests under alternative classification assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the protocol, the count of cleared flags could be treated as success even if clearances enable little legitimate use or shift unacceptable risks to others."},{"mechanism_slug":"regulatory_simplification_pilot","role":"Confines the new reauthorization rule to one collection unit, named administrative categories, two-person verification, live monitoring, and automatic expiry of the pilot policy.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded pilot, the museum would change restriction governance across heterogeneous collections before testing classification errors, workload, and authority conflicts."}],"causal_chain":["A temporary operational concern causes staff to place a use hold on an object.","The collections system records the hold without a reliable owner, review date, evidence standard, or distinction between administrative and independently protected restrictions.","The initiating task or condition may be resolved, but no event requires the hold to be reconsidered.","Later staff treat the persistent flag as a continuing prohibition and decline an otherwise potentially permissible use.","The registry classifies the hold by authority, basis, affected uses, owner, evidence, and review date.","At review, a temporary administrative hold must be cleared, reauthorized with current evidence, or escalated; an unknown or protected restriction remains in force pending competent clearance.","Two-person verification prevents expiry alone from releasing an object.","After a justified administrative hold is cleared, the requester may enter the museum's normal study, display, imaging, or loan approval process.","Monitoring determines whether recovered uses occur without adverse object, legal, ethical, cultural, privacy, rights, or distributional effects."],"baseline":"Use holds are entered in collections records under existing local practices. Some flags may include a reason or note, but ownership, authority category, review date, affected-use scope, and evidence requirements are not consistently required. A hold usually persists until a staff member clears it through case-specific inquiry, often after a new use request draws attention to the record.","nearest_rivals":["Delete old or undocumented flags in bulk: this is faster but treats missing evidence as evidence that no protection exists.","Perform a one-time database cleanup: this can correct current records but does not change the persistence rule that creates future indefinite holds.","Hire additional registrars or conservators to clear the backlog: this adds capacity but leaves holds ownerless and review optional after the backlog is processed.","Let requesters appeal denials individually: this can resolve selected cases but shifts discovery and advocacy burdens onto outsiders and favors well-resourced requesters.","Improve collections-system labels and search functions: better information assists review but does not require a hold to re-earn continuation or identify competent clearance authority.","Digitize or exhibit substitutes for restricted objects: substitution may support some interpretation but does not determine whether the original object's administrative restriction remains justified."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal is warranted only when a museum-created temporary hold continues because its governance lacks ownership and scheduled reauthorization, and when removal would return the object only to ordinary use review. If the hold reflects a current substantive risk, independent cultural or legal authority, unresolved provenance, insufficient evidence, or actual review capacity scarcity, continued restriction or additional capacity—not expiry—is the appropriate response.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The museum governing body approves the pilot categories, authority taxonomy, verification rule, monitoring triggers, and sunset. Registrars administer the registry but may clear only delegated administrative holds. Conservators, legal and provenance reviewers, privacy and rights staff, security personnel, and applicable source-community or cultural authorities retain decision authority over restrictions within their respective domains.","authorized_first_step":"Authorize a read-only audit and paper classification of active holds in one collection unit. No flag may be cleared, shortened, or recategorized during this evidence step.","excluded_actions":["Automatically clearing any hold solely because it is old, undocumented, or past a review date","Allowing staff silence to count as consent or clearance","Changing restrictions grounded in source-community or cultural authority without that authority's affirmative decision","Clearing legal, rights, privacy, donor, provenance, repatriation, security, hazard, or conservation restrictions through the administrative-expiry path","Treating removal of a hold as approval for study, display, imaging, publication, handling, or loan","Releasing restricted information while auditing the record","Setting review priority solely by projected revenue, prestige, or requester influence","Penalizing a reviewer or community authority for retaining or escalating a hold","Applying the pilot outside the approved collection unit or hold categories"],"halt_rollback":"Pause all pending administrative clearances if a protected restriction is misclassified, an object is used without required approval, a cultural or rights complaint indicates an authority failure, two-person verification is bypassed, or review workload exceeds the approved boundary. Reinstate affected holds provisionally, stop downstream use where lawful and safe, preserve evidence and notifications, and require the competent authority and governing body to review the failure before the pilot resumes."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The audit finds that active holds are current, well-evidenced, owned, and periodically reviewed; apparent persistence reflects unresolved substantive risks or competent external authority; or no otherwise feasible use has been denied solely because an administrative flag remained after its basis was resolved.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified if the sampled collection contains no temporary administrative hold lacking a live basis and no blocked use attributable solely to such persistence.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if scheduled reauthorization does not produce justified clearances or usable decisions, or if it causes unacceptable misclassification, repeated defensive renewal, reviewer overload, unauthorized use, cultural or rights harm, or inequitable review patterns that boundary changes cannot correct.","risks":["Missing documentation may conceal a valid restriction rather than an obsolete one.","Staff may reauthorize every hold defensively, preserving the wedge as paperwork.","Pressure to report cleared holds may encourage unsafe classification.","Authority categories may oversimplify overlapping legal, cultural, ethical, and conservation interests.","Source communities or rights holders may not have resources to participate on the museum's review schedule.","High-profile requested objects may receive attention while less visible holdings remain indefinitely restricted.","Review work may displace conservation, registration, or community-engagement duties.","Cleared objects may be mistaken for automatically approved uses.","System migrations may recreate or detach holds from their evidence.","A pilot collection may not represent records with more complex histories.","Reinstating a hold may not fully reverse a harmful disclosure or use." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Audit up to 100 active use-hold records from one collection unit. For each, record the stated basis, creation date, originating authority, owner, affected uses, supporting evidence, review history, related work completion, denied requests, and applicable cultural, legal, rights, privacy, provenance, hazard, security, donor, or conservation interests. A registrar and relevant subject specialist should independently paper-classify each hold as currently supported, eligible for administrative reauthorization review, outside institutional clearance authority, or indeterminate. Report disagreements, missing evidence, hypothetical clearances, blocked uses that would still face other approvals, staff effort, affected-party incidence, and every condition that would halt a live pilot; make no record or access changes.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addresses scarce outgoing-loan slots retained by stalled borrowing institutions and uses milestone-based release and waitlist reallocation. Proposal 5 does not reallocate a quota or alter borrower priority; it changes the persistence default for internal temporary object-use holds. Proposal 2 addresses temporal visitor congestion through peak and off-peak admission pricing with protected inventory. Proposal 5 changes neither ticket prices nor gallery capacity and instead governs stored-object restriction records. Proposal 3 addresses a bundled reproduction fee for eligible digital images through purpose-based fee tiers. Proposal 5 does not alter reproduction charges or presume that a restricted image is eligible; it determines whether an internal administrative hold still has authority before any ordinary use decision. Proposal 4 addresses time-bounded acquisition offers through parallel accession review, delegated decisions, and temporary custody. Proposal 5 neither acquires objects nor changes ownership or pre-accession custody; it concerns restrictions on objects already governed by the collection system. Its problem, intervention, causal path, actors, authority, evidence, and failure modes are distinct from all four earlier proposals, and it can be adopted independently.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}