{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__sociology_anthropology:P2:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__sociology_anthropology","search_queries":["museum archive research access appointment cancellations waitlist scheduling collections study room","anthropology museum collections access Indigenous community access policy source community official","museum collections access standards appointment scheduling conservation staff capacity official","archives researcher appointment capacity unused slots cancellation waitlist","site:si.edu collections access policy indigenous community researchers appointment anthropology collections","site:americananthro.org museum collections source community access ethics official","site:ica.org archives access principles restrictions preservation official","museum appointment no show cancellation waitlist collections access research room policy","archives reading room cancellation booking waiting list appointment \"offer\" \"others\"","museum collections research visit waiting list cancellations capacity appointment","archive research room booking cancellation policy waiting list official","special collections reading room waiting list cancelled appointment"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Collections and Archives Access","publisher":"Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History","url":"https://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/anthropology/collections-and-archives-access","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Anthropology collections and archives have limited appointment slots and staff.","Community groups and culture-bearers are identifiable users alongside academic researchers.","Some collections require additional approvals and repatriation-related visits use a separate office."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"How do researchers book a visit?","publisher":"Natural History Museum, London","url":"https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/services/collections/access/book-a-visit.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["High demand can produce research-access waiting lists and application lead times of at least two months.","The museum asks users to return all or part of an unneeded booking so it can be offered to others.","Scheduling depends on staff, space, equipment, materials, and prior confirmation."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Archives and Picture Library booking request","publisher":"Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge","url":"https://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/archives/bookings/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A capacity-constrained archive caps each researcher at five days in a twenty-day period.","Staff maintain a waiting list for days that become vacant.","New dates are released monthly, demonstrating periodic capacity release in an archival setting."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Study visit to the Museum's objects","publisher":"National Museum of Denmark","url":"https://en.natmus.dk/sales-and-services/museum-services/study-visit-to-the-museums-objects/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Requests to study museum collections exceed available capacity.","The museum uses four annual application rounds and prioritizes requests.","It currently has no waiting list, making it a concrete contrast case for periodic clearing plus standby reassignment."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Indigenous Access + Engagement","publisher":"Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia","url":"https://moa.ubc.ca/indigenous-access-and-engagement/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The museum expressly prioritizes access for originating-community members while also serving researchers and the public.","The museum recognizes that cultural rights, values, knowledge, and ideas may remain with originating communities.","In-person, virtual, networked, and grant-supported access are established alternatives that complicate any estimate of blocked physical-access value."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Principles of Access to Archives","publisher":"International Council on Archives","url":"https://www.ica.org/app/uploads/2023/12/ICA-Standards_Access_principles_EN.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2012-08-24","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Archives should provide the widest possible access while enforcing legal, ethical, donor, cultural, and preservation restrictions.","An accountable official with sufficient authority should lead the access program, with adequate funding and trained staff.","The standard supports modifying access rules but expressly does not prescribe service-delivery or preservation-access operations."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Standards for Museums with Native American Collections","publisher":"Association of Registrars and Collections Specialists","url":"https://www.arcsinfo.org/content/documents/resources/smnac-final-document-june-2023.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2023-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Access to Native cultural collections should prioritize originating Native community members.","Collections-related research should incorporate Native cultural protocols and consultation.","Culturally sensitive collections may properly be excluded from public access, so nonuse cannot automatically be counted as idle capacity."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"43 CFR Part 10—Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations","publisher":"Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Government","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-A/part-10","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2024-01-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["For covered human remains and cultural items, museums and federal agencies have consultation and duty-of-care obligations.","Covered exhibition, access, or research requires free, prior, and informed consent from the relevant lineal descendants, Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations.","Scheduling authority cannot substitute for legally required consent, consultation, safeguarding, or deference to Native American traditional knowledge."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"Official institutions visibly report scarce staff-supported access, excess demand, waiting lists, long lead times, and cancellations that can be offered to others. However, no opened source verifies the candidate's specific baseline—an annual first-come, nonreallocating anthropology-archive queue—or measures safely deliverable hours stranded while ready, fully authorized community or research requests expire. The general scarcity problem exists; the claimed deadweight-loss wedge and its magnitude remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Smithsonian, the Natural History Museum, Cambridge, the National Museum of Denmark, and UBC identify actual institutional operators and affected users. Their published practices express demand for scarce access, waiting-list management, periodic rounds, and originating-community priority. None expresses demand for the candidate's complete protected-pool and readiness-checkpoint design or commits to adopting it.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Cancellation-to-waitlist reassignment at the Natural History Museum","similarity":"It combines high-demand collection appointments, a waiting list, partial booking returns, and explicit reoffering of released capacity—the proposal's central allocation move.","remaining_difference":"It does not publicly specify staged readiness checks, protected community pools, incidence monitoring, restoration guarantees, or an expiring pilot.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"Monthly slot release and vacancy waiting list at the Scott Polar Research Institute","similarity":"It caps individual use, releases dates periodically, and maintains a waiting list for capacity that becomes vacant.","remaining_difference":"It concerns a single archival research desk and does not publish the candidate's cultural-authority safeguards or comparative audit design.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Quarterly prioritized study-visit rounds at the National Museum of Denmark","similarity":"It is a museum-level periodic allocation process responding to demand above capacity and includes explicit prioritization.","remaining_difference":"It has no waiting list or published mid-cycle reassignment mechanism and does not identify protected community reserves.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Originating-community access priority at UBC Museum of Anthropology","similarity":"It establishes community priority, multiple access modes, and institution-supported access to culturally connected collections.","remaining_difference":"The page does not describe ring-fenced capacity pools, readiness-based release, or periodic clearing of dormant reservations.","source_ids":["S5"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Relative to both the actual annual baseline and a simple cancellation-to-waitlist comparator, staged readiness confirmation plus protected community-capacity carry-forward will recover additional safely deliverable, already-authorized access hours before expiration without reducing community access share, overriding any restriction or consent requirement, increasing preservation incidents, or imposing administrative and planning costs greater than the recovered benefit.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Periodic release, booking caps, waiting lists, and cancellation reassignment already operate in archival or museum settings, so the scheduling logic is technically straightforward. Standards and regulation identify implementable safeguard boundaries. Feasibility remains site-dependent because the candidate supplies no archive, workflow system, historical ledger, delegated authority instrument, labor capacity, applicable jurisdiction, or authorized community-governance partner.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Scarce access and community significance are visible, but no source quantifies stranded hours, expired eligible requests, or resulting cultural and research losses.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Multiple institutions publicly acknowledge demand above capacity and already manage access allocations, but no institution requests or sponsors the full intervention.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Cancellation reoffering, vacancy waitlists, and periodic rounds already recover much of the proposed value; additional advantage from readiness checkpoints and protected-pool carry-forward is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The integrated safeguard package may be locally distinctive, but the core allocation mechanism substantially collides with established public practices.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A ledger, confirmation checkpoints, ranked standby list, and simulation are conventional workflow components, though sensitive classifications and system integration need local validation.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Archive leadership can ordinarily administer access systems, but sufficient delegated authority and funding must be verified, while consent and cultural-governance authority remain outside scheduling staff's control.","source_ids":["S6","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Public evidence establishes context but not the causal wedge. The decisive evidence is an institution's nonpublic allocation ledger and stakeholder classification of safely reallocable capacity.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Holding eligibility fixed, protecting community priority, expiring the pilot, and preserving consent and care requirements are strong design safeguards if governance participants validate them.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The workflow can transfer across appointment-based collections, but priority rules, cultural protocols, legal duties, staffing, and reservation units vary materially by institution and collection class.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S6","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One completed-cycle de-identified ledger audit and tabletop comparison for one service class, including staff extraction, conservator review, authorized community-participant compensation, analysis, and a short report.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing records can be exported without building a new system.","The audit covers roughly 100-500 reservations and requires 0.1-0.3 FTE-year combined labor.","No live access decisions are changed.","Community participation is compensated and privacy review is limited in scope."],"source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and approval of readiness rules, protected pools, notice and restoration terms, privacy controls, audit fields, scheduling-system configuration, training, and consultation for one bounded archive service.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Configuration extends an existing booking or collections-management system.","No custom enterprise platform or major digitization program is included.","Legal and cultural-governance review is substantive but confined to one service class.","The archive does not need additional conservation capacity."],"source_ids":["S3","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One prospective scheduling-cycle pilot, including checkpoint administration, standby offers, staff support, community-governance participation, monitoring, evaluation, and restoration contingencies.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Pilot duration is 6-12 months.","Incremental workload is approximately 0.5-1.5 FTE-years across scheduling, collections care, analysis, and governance participation.","The pilot remains inside existing safe handling and occupancy limits.","Travel grants, major conservation treatments, and collection digitization are excluded."],"source_ids":["S2","S5","S6","S7"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Recurring checkpoint processing, standby management, applicant support, protected-pool governance, audit maintenance, annual incidence review, system support, and participant compensation for one archive program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Volume remains in the low hundreds of requests annually.","Manual review remains necessary for sensitive and unusual cases.","Costs exclude additional access capacity, major software replacement, conservation treatment, and applicant travel.","The intervention is renewed only after pilot evidence."],"source_ids":["S1","S5","S6","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"NO","reason":"External sources verify scarce access, excess demand, waits, and cancellation reoffering, but not the candidate's defining combination of an annual nonreallocating queue, safely stranded allocations, and ready authorized demand that expires unused.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Several credible museums and archives operate analogous allocation practices, but no named institution is documented as willing to adopt this intervention, and no site-specific scheduling authorizer or community-governance authorizer has been confirmed.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be tested against both the historical baseline and a simple cancellation-to-waitlist comparator on recovered authorized hours, expired requests, community incidence, workload, planning disruption, and safeguard breaches.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A one-cycle retrospective ledger reconstruction and tabletop simulation can be bounded to one service class, change no live access decision, and use explicit comparators and falsifiers.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The retrospective simulation is low risk, but a live pilot cannot proceed until local decision authority, privacy controls, applicable legal duties, source-community authorization, consent boundaries, and restoration authority are verified.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Scope drivers are visible, but no named archive, request volume, wage schedule, system architecture, consultation burden, or first-party project budget supports the estimated bands.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S6","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Partner with one archive that confirms the proposed annual, project-specific baseline. For one completed cycle and one service class, reconstruct de-identified offered, assigned, confirmed, canceled, delivered, preservation-downtime, permission-status, protected-pool, and standby-demand records. Have scheduling staff, a conservator, and an authorized community-governance participant independently classify reallocability at predeclared checkpoints. Compare: A) actual baseline; B) immediate voluntary-cancellation-to-waitlist reassignment modeled on existing practice; and C) periodic readiness clearing with protected-pool carry-forward. Report recovered safely deliverable authorized hours, eligible requests served before expiry, classification agreement, community incidence, displaced expectations, staff steps, and sensitive-data exposure. Falsify the incremental claim if C does not outperform B, if no ready eligible demand coincides with safely reallocable capacity, if any gain requires weakening consent or restrictions, if protected community access falls, or if workload, planning disruption, misclassification, or preservation risk outweighs the incremental recovered use. Do not alter live access until these tests pass and the relevant authorities approve a separate expiring pilot.","blocking_evidence":["No external evidence identifies an archive with the stated annual first-come, nonreallocating baseline.","No public dataset measures assigned-versus-delivered hours, cancellation timing, ready eligible standby demand, or safely reallocable capacity.","No adopter, scheduling authorizer, or authorized community-governance partner has committed to the evaluation.","The proposal's advantage over ordinary cancellation reoffering and vacancy waitlists is unmeasured.","Site-specific privacy, consent, cultural-authority, preservation, donor, and legal applicability are unresolved.","Cost bands lack a named site's volume, labor rates, system architecture, and consultation requirements."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"This evaluation searched only the public web for operational analogues, institutional need, standards, and legal constraints. It did not measure world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact, and it did not inspect other proposals or experiments. The public search found substantial collision with cancellation reoffering, vacancy waitlists, periodic application rounds, and community-priority practices; it cannot establish whether the complete combined rule has been implemented anywhere.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Identify a willing archive and document that its current allocation rule actually matches the claimed annual nonreallocating baseline.","Obtain a de-identified completed-cycle ledger sufficient to measure safely stranded capacity and contemporaneous ready eligible demand.","Validate reallocability classifications with scheduling staff, a conservator, and an authorized community-governance participant.","Compare periodic clearing against both the actual baseline and simple cancellation-to-waitlist reassignment.","Precommit incidence, preservation, privacy, consent, workload, planning-reliability, and rollback thresholds.","Verify the archive's scheduling authority and the separate authorities governing restricted or culturally sensitive materials.","Replace generic cost assumptions with a site-specific work breakdown, labor estimate, system-change estimate, and participant-compensation budget."],"reason":"The decisive unknowns are not answerable by further bounded web search: they require an archive's proprietary operational records, authorized stakeholder judgments, and a tabletop or live comparative test. Public evidence supports scarcity and shows substantial prior-art collision, but it does not verify the claimed deadweight-loss mechanism or incremental benefit."},"proposal_index":2}