{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"negative_space_design__marine_science:P4:v0","cell_id":"negative_space_design__marine_science","search_queries":["site:unols.org chief scientist cruise planning handbook decision authority vessel master","adaptive sampling oceanographic cruise multidisciplinary decision making front plume station planning","independent opinions before discussion anchoring group decision making study written ideas","nominal group technique silent generation ideas before discussion evidence groupthink","site:unols.org cruise planning chief scientist handbook decision meetings adaptive sampling","site:schmidtocean.org adaptive sampling cruise chief scientist decision data multidisciplinary","site:noaa.gov oceanographic cruise adaptive sampling ship time decision making scientists","oceanography adaptive sampling cruise real time decision station planning paper","UNOLS cruise meetings early career scientists communication decision making chief scientist survey","oceanographic research cruise team science party hierarchy communication decisions study","scientific research cruise team hierarchy participation early career shipboard culture report","site:unols.org chief scientist training communication science party decision making","Weisband 1992 group discussion first advocacy effects full text","Diehl Stroebe productivity loss brainstorming production blocking primary study pdf","Van de Ven Delbecq nominal group technique effectiveness primary research 1974 pdf","social influence undermines wisdom of crowd Lorenz 2011 PNAS full text","Stasser Titus pooling unshared information group decision making 1985 primary full text","discussion bias shared information group decisions hidden profile primary experiment","independent judgment before group discussion improves decisions study Delphi estimate-interact-estimate","IDEA protocol investigate discuss estimate aggregate structured expert judgement independent estimates study","\"SPASSOv2.0\" adaptive satellite-based sampling full text","\"Group discussion and first advocacy effects\" pdf","\"Eliciting improved quantitative judgements\" IDEA protocol PLOS ONE","\"How social influence can undermine\" PNAS 1008636108"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Research Vessel Safety Standards, Edition 11","publisher":"University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System","url":"https://www.unols.org/sites/default/files/RVSS_11thEd-12Nov2021.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2021-11-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The vessel master has ultimate legal authority over operations and safety, including absolute authority when a decision must be made quickly.","The chief scientist coordinates and executes the scientific mission under the master's overall control.","Reasonable accommodations and safety procedures require advance planning."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"NSF-UNOLS Chief Scientist Training Cruise","publisher":"University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System","url":"https://www.unols.org/nsf-unols-chief-scientist-training-cruise","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NSF-UNOLS operates a program and workshops that train early-career scientists to plan and execute research aboard UNOLS vessels.","The program is an identifiable prospective host or funder for a non-operational tabletop exercise, although it does not express demand for this specific protocol."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Spring Ichthyoplankton Survey Cruise Instructions R2-13-02","publisher":"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration","url":"https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16465/noaa_16465_DS1.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2013-04-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Oceanographic cruises can alter sampling stations using incoming satellite data and current oceanographic conditions.","The field-party chief can change station order only after consulting the commanding officer.","Shipboard sampling requires active communication with the bridge and immediate response to weather, mechanical, and medical constraints."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"A Software Package for an Adaptive Satellite-Based Sampling for Oceanographic Cruises (SPASSOv2.0): Tracking Fine-Scale Features for Physical and Biogeochemical Studies","publisher":"American Meteorological Society","url":"https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/42/8/JTECH-D-24-0071.1.xml","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Near-real-time physical and biogeochemical data are used to direct adaptive oceanographic sampling toward fine-scale features.","Adaptive cruise planning is a real scientific workflow rather than a hypothetical decision setting.","The paper does not document conversational anchoring or evaluate silent-first-pass deliberation."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Group Discussion and First Advocacy Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision Making Groups","publisher":"Elsevier","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/074959789290070N","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"1992-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A controlled experiment examined whether the first publicly advocated position exerts disproportionate influence on a group decision.","First-advocacy effects provide a causal lead for the proposed problem, but the study did not involve scientists, ships, or adaptive sampling."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"How Social Influence Can Undermine the Wisdom of Crowd Effect","publisher":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3107299/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2011-05-31","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["In an experiment with 144 participants, information about others' estimates reduced opinion diversity without improving collective error.","Convergence increased confidence despite no corresponding accuracy improvement.","The experiment used factual estimation tasks and did not establish effects in cruise decisions."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Nominal Group Technique (NGT)","publisher":"American Society for Quality","url":"https://asq.org/quality-resources/nominal-group-technique","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NGT is an established structured practice in which participants silently write ideas before round-robin reporting and discussion.","NGT is recommended when vocal participation is unequal, some members think better in silence, or participation is a concern.","The procedure allows passing and uses inexpensive materials, making it a close operational analogue."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Eliciting Improved Quantitative Judgements Using the IDEA Protocol: A Case Study in Natural Resource Management","publisher":"PLOS ONE","url":"https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0198468","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2018-06-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The IDEA protocol elicits private initial judgments, supports structured discussion, permits revision, and aggregates judgments.","The protocol was applied to Great Barrier Reef questions and was reported as practical, repeatable, and cost-effective using conference calls, email, PDF forms, and standard analysis.","The study used consent and ethics review and restricted potentially identifying participant comments and attributes.","The study lacked a no-feedback/no-discussion control, so it could not isolate which protocol component caused improvement.","The authors found mixed effects of interaction and residual anchoring, underscoring the need for a controlled comparison."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Adaptive station changes based on evolving ocean conditions visibly occur, and controlled studies show first-advocacy and social-influence effects that can suppress diversity. However, no direct cruise transcript, survey, incident report, or observational study was found showing that opening interpretations actually suppress decision-relevant multidisciplinary readings during adaptive cruises. The mechanism is supported; prevalence and consequence in the target workflow remain unverified.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"A credible authorizer and prospective host are identifiable: chief scientists control scientific mission coordination, vessel masters control operational safety, and NSF-UNOLS runs chief-scientist planning and execution training. NOAA instructions also confirm the field-party-chief/commanding-officer decision interface. None of these organizations expresses demand for silent-first-pass deliberation, offers partnership, or reports the proposed problem, so adopter intent and stakeholder pull are not established.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Nominal Group Technique","similarity":"Nearly the same interaction sequence: a framed question, silent individual writing, reporting without initial discussion, subsequent clarification, and permission to pass. It directly addresses unequal vocal participation and the value of silent thinking.","remaining_difference":"The candidate specializes the practice for time-bounded adaptive cruise decisions, temporarily withholds the chief scientist's explanatory recommendation, preserves operational channels, separates observations/data-quality concerns/interpretations/discriminating actions, timestamps notes, and specifies vessel-master override.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"IDEA structured expert-judgment protocol","similarity":"Uses private initial judgments before exposure to peers, structured discussion, documented reasoning and uncertainty, and a later judgment. It has already been applied to marine natural-resource questions concerning the Great Barrier Reef.","remaining_difference":"IDEA is primarily a quantitative elicitation and aggregation method, commonly remote and multi-round. The candidate targets a short synchronous shipboard decision interval, records qualitative scientific observations and tests, withholds leader interpretation, and does not mathematically aggregate answers.","source_ids":["S8"]},{"name":"First-advocacy and social-influence experiments","similarity":"Directly support the hypothesized causal concern that early public positions and exposure to others can disproportionately shape later judgments or reduce diversity.","remaining_difference":"These are laboratory evidence and causal leads, not an operational marine-science protocol or evidence that the effect occurs during adaptive cruises.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For eligible adaptive-cruise decisions, adding explicit withholding of leader interpretation plus a bounded private observation/data-quality/interpretation/discriminator record and observation-first reveal will produce a practically important increase in blind-rated, nonredundant decision-relevant readings relative both to immediate open discussion and to a private-first nominal-group condition in which the leader's explanation is already available, without unacceptable decision delay, misunderstanding, coercion, accessibility failure, or interruption of urgent operational communication.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The intervention is technically simple: timer, private forms, a facilitator, preserved data context, and an observation-first reporting script. NGT and IDEA demonstrate feasible workflows using paper or ordinary collaboration tools. Existing authority is compatible if the chief scientist authorizes scientific use and the master can interrupt immediately. The main unresolved implementation issues are whether clarification can safely wait, whether notes can be handled confidentially, whether all response modes are accessible, and whether the added interval fits real station deadlines. If results are intended as generalizable research, local ethics/IRB and consent determinations are needed; a closely related marine study used ethics approval and de-identification.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"On a 1-5 scale, adaptive sampling decisions visibly redirect scarce cruise effort, so better comparison of disciplinary readings could matter. No source measures errors, lost ship time, or scientific outcomes attributable to conversational order.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Credible institutions and decision authorities exist, but no target organization expressed this specific need or willingness to adopt or fund the protocol.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Silent private generation before discussion is already established in NGT and IDEA. Potential advantage rests on cruise-specific leader-withholding, observation taxonomy, timestamping, and safety-channel design, none of which has comparative evidence.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The context-specific claim is contrastive and falsifiable, but the central mechanism substantially collides with established structured-deliberation practice. World novelty is not assessed.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The procedure needs only ordinary forms, timing, facilitation, and record handling. Real-time clarification, accessibility, and communications integration keep it below fully demonstrated feasibility.","source_ids":["S1","S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Chief scientists have scientific coordination authority and masters retain operational override. A suitable NSF-UNOLS training venue exists, although partner assent has not been obtained.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"Archived packets, timestamped notes, blinded coding, and controlled meeting formats support a bounded tabletop experiment. Recruitment, ethics/privacy review, and validated scoring rubrics remain necessary.","source_ids":["S2","S8"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Explicit master override, active safety channels, passing, accessible modes, and immediate rollback bound harm, but their performance under shipboard time pressure has not been tested.","source_ids":["S1","S3"]},"scalability":{"score":4,"rationale":"If effective, a protocol, facilitator script, and note template could diffuse cheaply across cruises. Variation in vessel procedures, languages, accessibility, and decision tempo will require local adaptation.","source_ids":["S1","S7","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and preregister a small counterbalanced tabletop study using archived packets; recruit 24-32 multidisciplinary participants; compensate preparation and participation; facilitate sessions; de-identify records; obtain blinded reviews; analyze outcomes and participant-reported harms.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 150-300 total staff and participant hours at loaded 2026 rates.","Archived data are already available and need only bounded redaction and formatting.","No vessel time, travel, equipment purchase, or live station change is included.","Local ethics or privacy review is administrative rather than a prolonged regulated study."],"source_ids":["S2","S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"After favorable evidence, co-design an institution-approved SOP, forms, accessibility alternatives, note-retention rules, facilitator training, master/bridge override language, and one rehearsal for a prospective cruise.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Uses existing meeting and data systems.","Includes legal, privacy, accessibility, marine-operations, and science-lead review.","Excludes vessel modification and research-vessel charter time."],"source_ids":["S1","S3","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Launch on one supervised cruise for a limited number of eligible scientific-planning decisions, including pre-cruise training, facilitation, secure note handling, monitoring, and post-cruise evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No station or transit is delayed solely to complete the protocol.","Protocol use is suspended whenever the master or bridge requires immediate communication.","Cost is marginal labor and governance effort, not the underlying funded cruise.","Any actual vessel schedule delay could move resource-equivalent cost into a higher band."],"source_ids":["S1","S3","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Maintain templates and training, support approximately 4-10 cruises or exercises annually, review incidents and accessibility feedback, and audit a sample of decision records.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One part-time program owner plus distributed facilitator time.","Existing secure institutional storage and collaboration tools are used.","No dedicated software platform or vessel time is included."],"source_ids":["S2","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Adaptive decisions and the generic social-influence mechanism are externally supported, but target-setting prevalence, severity, and realized decision harm were not found in cruise-specific evidence.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"UNOLS/NSF operates chief-scientist training, chief scientists control scientific coordination, and vessel masters provide the necessary operational authorization and override. This verifies a credible adopter/authorizer class, not adoption intent.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim can compare leader-interpretation withholding and silent private recording against immediate discussion and an ordinary private-first structured-deliberation comparator using blinded content measures and explicit harm/time thresholds.","source_ids":["S5","S7","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A non-operational experiment using archived packets, a small recruited sample, preregistered conditions, timestamped outputs, and blinded review is bounded and cannot alter an active cruise.","source_ids":["S2","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the next tabletop step, no vessel operation changes. Any later live pilot can preserve active bridge and safety channels and the master's absolute interruption authority; participant passing, accessible modes, consent, and rollback remain mandatory.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"Broad resource-equivalent bands are credible when expressly limited to labor, governance, and existing tools. Related protocols use inexpensive ordinary tools, but live-ship opportunity cost remains a low-confidence exclusion that must be monitored.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"With an interested UNOLS training host or operating institution, obtain an ethics/privacy determination and select two de-identified archived adaptive-sampling packets with no operational consequence. Recruit 24-32 participants spanning physical, chemical, biological, technical, and planning roles. Preregister a counterbalanced 2x2 tabletop comparison: leader explanation provided versus withheld, crossed with immediate discussion versus a 5-minute private first-pass record. Preserve identical provenance, quality limitations, constraints, deadline, and safety cues in every condition. Timestamp records and have blinded reviewers score nonredundant direct observations, data-quality concerns, competing interpretations, and discriminating measurements or station actions. Also measure decision time, misunderstood-data rate, pressure, accessibility barriers, and attempted urgent-channel use. Do not advance if the full candidate condition fails to improve the median blind-rated distinct-item count by at least 15% over both immediate discussion and private-first-with-explanation on both packets; if more than 10% of first-pass items are unusable because clarification was delayed; if median added decision time exceeds five minutes; or if any urgent operational message is inhibited, any participant reports coercion, or an accessibility mode fails. Treat results as setting-specific and use them only to decide whether a separately authorized supervised live pilot is warranted.","blocking_evidence":["No cruise-specific transcript, survey, or observational dataset establishes how often immediate senior interpretation suppresses independent readings or changes station decisions.","No UNOLS, NOAA, vessel operator, chief scientist, or funder has expressed demand for or agreed to host this protocol.","No controlled test distinguishes the candidate's leader-withholding and observation-first features from established NGT or IDEA procedures.","No live-workflow evidence establishes clarification safety, accessibility, participant experience, decision-time cost, or effect on station choice.","Marginal shipboard opportunity cost is not calibrated; the stated cost bands exclude actual vessel delay."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes substantial collision with nominal-group and IDEA structured-deliberation methods but does not establish whether the complete cruise-specific combination has been used elsewhere. World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure a named UNOLS, NOAA, or vessel-operator partner and document its target decision workflow, authority map, and adoption criteria.","Obtain cruise-specific baseline evidence from archived meeting records, structured interviews, or a prospective observation showing first-speaker framing and missing independent alternatives.","Run the preregistered tabletop factorial comparison against immediate discussion and established private-first practice.","Demonstrate the candidate-specific incremental effect on blinded decision-relevant content, not merely increased word count or participant satisfaction.","Validate time, clarification, accessibility, privacy, coercion, and urgent-communication falsifiers before considering a live pilot.","Re-estimate operational costs using the partner's actual staffing and vessel-delay rules."],"reason":"Bounded web research verified adaptive decision workflows, credible authority, generic social-influence mechanisms, and very close prior art. It did not establish target-setting prevalence or an incremental cruise-specific effect. Those remaining questions require participants, archived proprietary records, or live workflow testing rather than more bounded web search."},"proposal_index":4}