{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__disaster_management:P3:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__disaster_management","proposal_index":3,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific falsifiable claim that renewable generator claims with stabilization and multi-source release review yield earlier safe, feasible reassignment than ordinary manual closure or a staffed closure surge, without worsening safety, priority, reserve, connection, or workload outcomes."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official and research sources establish consequential disaster-resource tracking, availability, and allocation failures in a scarce emergency-power workflow. The exact prevalence of stale generator claims remains unverified, but that is a bounded empirical uncertainty rather than vague problem fishing."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A state or local incident-command emergency-power authority, working with its logistics function, generator owners, facility managers, and technical personnel, can authorize the review and provide the required records and operational adjudication."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The defining questions require nonpublic, synchronized mission, load, queue, reserve, compatibility, ownership, and logistics records plus practitioner judgment about whether releases would have been safe and authorized; ordinary public research cannot resolve them."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is a command-approved, data-use-governed retrospective replay of closed missions that changes no historical or live dispatch. It preserves recorded authority, priority, reserve, compatibility, and safety constraints."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed 50-150-mission blinded replay is bounded by one incident or exercise and compares pre-registered renewable-claim variants against ordinary closure and a staffed closure surge, with explicit operational outcomes and falsifiers."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No evaluated gate is materially NO. The unresolved problem-prevalence, data-completeness, and cost questions are precisely testable through the partnered replay; the safety and authority gate is satisfied for the retrospective step, while any live pilot remains conditional."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is a concrete partnership, dataset, sample, comparator protocol, measurement plan, and progression decision—not an open-ended request for additional research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"One incident-command or emergency-power authority with control over a defined generator pool and access to 50-150 closed missions, supported by logistics dispatchers, asset owners, facility representatives, utility-status personnel, and qualified electrical and transport reviewers.","required_access":"A signed data-use and operational-review agreement; timestamped request, assignment, acceptance, connection, load, restoration, stabilization, release, queue, reserve, compatibility, transport, technician, fuel, ownership, and contact records; and authorized practitioner adjudication of release safety and feasibility.","bounded_empirical_test":"Blind two reviewer teams to historical outcomes and replay 50-150 closed missions from one incident or exercise. Compare ordinary manual closure, a staffed manual-closure surge, and pre-registered renewable-claim variants crossing 4-, 8-, and 12-hour confirmation intervals with 2-, 4-, and 8-hour stabilization windows and two-source human release verification. Require contemporaneous authority, reserve, priority, compatibility, transport, technician, connection, and fuel feasibility for every proposed reassignment.","success_condition":"At least one materially earlier, safe, technically and logistically feasible reassignment to a contemporaneous verified critical request is identified, with no overlap with essential load or required reserve and without materially more priority, compatibility, connection, status-conflict, or workload failures than both comparators; measured recoverable time must exceed the added coordination burden.","falsification_condition":"Qualifying stale claims are absent or already promptly released; no compatible supported request exists during flagged intervals; renewable rules produce no feasible earlier reassignment; any proposed release overlaps an essential load or required reserve; or errors and coordination burden eliminate or materially outweigh the time advantage relative to both comparators.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: adjacent practice exists, but the differentiated governance mechanism remains testable and unresolved. External evidence supports the surrounding allocation problem and identifies credible authorities, while proprietary records and operational adjudication are indispensable to determine whether stale claims occur and whether the protocol improves on both current practice and a simpler manual-closure surge. The retrospective comparator design is safe, bounded, and capable of stopping the proposal before any live intervention."}