{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__material_culture_museum_studies:P1:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__material_culture_museum_studies","proposal_index":1,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific, contrastive, falsifiable claim: milestone-conditioned release and transparent reassignment of stale reservations within an unchanged outgoing-loan cap will increase safely completed compatible loans without worsening safety, rights, workload, or access equity."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Sector and institutional evidence credibly establishes constrained loan capacity, conflicting commitments, rejected or paused requests, and cancellations or postponements. Although the narrower stale-slot mechanism remains unverified, the surrounding problem signal is credible enough to justify a partner-based prevalence test."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A museum with registrar-led loan operations, a collections committee, and governing-body oversight is a concrete partner class; cited institutional analogues show that such bodies possess the relevant records and authorization authority."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The decisive facts—whether a cap was binding, reservations became genuinely releasable, and compatible later requests were rejected—reside in proprietary event-level loan records and require object-specific classification by museum staff and relevant authority representatives. Public research cannot resolve them."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is a retrospective, de-identified audit and paper simulation with one consenting museum. It changes no live allocation, custody, approval, or protected review and can be authorized through existing institutional governance."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The study is limited to one completed cycle and one collection unit, compares the observed rule with a predeclared paper counterfactual, uses independent classification, and has decisive stopping conditions including zero compatible request-slot pairs or substitutions requiring compressed protected checks."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO. The exact problem prevalence and cost scope are uncertain, but the proposed partner study directly resolves the former, while cost uncertainty is not being used as the qualification basis. Safety, authority, testability, adopter credibility, and boundedness gates pass."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action specifies the partner, records, operational definitions, classifiers, comparator, measurements, and advancement and falsification rules; it is a concrete empirical adjudication rather than an open-ended request for more research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"One consenting museum that operates a genuinely binding outgoing-loan cap, maintains event-level loan and declined-request records, and has registrar, conservation, curatorial/access, source-community liaison, collections-committee, and governing-body participation available for a one-unit retrospective study.","required_access":"A de-identified event ledger for every outgoing-loan quota slot in one completed cycle, including reservation and status dates, milestones, cancellations or postponements, object-risk class, staff-capacity windows, protected approvals, later requests declined while the ledger was full, final outcomes, and bounded staff access for independent case classification.","bounded_empirical_test":"Predeclare binding-cap, genuinely-releasable, compatible-request, workload-ceiling, access-disparity, and protected-breach definitions. Audit one completed cycle in one collection unit; have relevant functions independently classify cases; reconcile and report disagreement and missingness; then compare the observed baseline with a paper simulation of the conditional-release rule, retaining a matched prior cycle or adjacent nonpilot unit as a secondary comparator when definitions align.","success_condition":"At least one credible request-slot substitution survives every unchanged conservation, legal, provenance, consent, security, insurance, staffing, timing, and equity requirement and yields an additional plausible completed loan or materially earlier legitimate access without exceeding the workload ceiling or triggering a protected-outcome or uncorrectable distributional breach.","falsification_condition":"No compatible request-slot pairs exist, the cap was not binding, apparently unused slots reflect necessary contingencies, simulated substitutions add no plausible completed loan or earlier access, or substitutions require compressed or bypassed checks, unacceptable workload, systematic gaming, or an access disparity that the proposed rubric cannot correct.","rationale":"This is an appropriate empirical-partner candidate because adjacent practice leaves a narrow differentiated mechanism unresolved, credible evidence shows a consequential surrounding capacity problem, and only a museum partner can expose and interpret the proprietary records needed to test the binding factual premise. The non-interventional first study is authorized, safe, bounded, comparator-based, and capable of either supporting progression to a governed live pilot or stopping the proposal decisively."}