{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__environmental_climate:P1:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__environmental_climate","search_queries":["site:gao.gov climate resilience grants local capacity fragmented funding flood mitigation report","site:fema.gov BRIC fiscal year 2024 notice funding opportunity qualitative criteria nature based disadvantaged communities","site:noaa.gov Climate Resilience Regional Challenge regional collaborative adaptation funding awards","site:ipcc.ch WGII maladaptation flood risk transfer downstream infrastructure adaptation","site:gao.gov disaster resilience grants local governments capacity technical assistance benefit cost analysis 2024","site:fema.gov grants BRIC technical assistance capacity communities benefit cost analysis 2024","site:fema.gov flood mitigation assistance grant multi-hazard mitigation project selection criteria disadvantaged communities 2024","site:gao.gov flood mitigation assistance grant competition fragmented programs municipalities tribal","flood risk management project portfolio optimization river basin multiple projects marginal contribution research paper","site:eur-lex.europa.eu Floods Directive river basin flood risk management plans coordination not increase flood risks upstream downstream","site:worldbank.org climate adaptation investment prioritization portfolio basin flood projects guidance","site:sciencedirect.com flood risk management portfolio optimization multiple interventions basin","site:usace.army.mil watershed planning flood risk management systems portfolio projects guidance upstream downstream","site:epa.gov watershed approach grants project selection portfolio flood resilience municipalities tribes","site:fema.gov benefit cost analysis toolkit ecosystem services climate future conditions hazard mitigation 2024","site:gao.gov hazard mitigation grant post project outcomes data monitoring flood 2025","site:fema.gov \"Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025\" BRIC 2026 application period March 25 July 23","site:grants.gov DHS-25-MT-047-00-98 BRIC FY 2024 2025","site:fema.gov \"Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities\" 2026 funding opportunity","site:fema.gov BRIC program current August 2026","\"Information-theoretic portfolio decision model for optimal flood management\"","10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.06.013 portfolio decision model flood management abstract","\"Portfolio Decision Model\" flood management basin scale authors","site:researchgate.net \"Information-theoretic portfolio decision model\"","site:environment.ec.europa.eu floods directive river basin risk management plans upstream downstream","site:climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu Floods Directive river basin flood risk management plans","site:eea.europa.eu Floods Directive coordinated river basin risk management","\"DHS-25-MT-047-00-98\" PDF BRIC NOFO technical evaluation criteria","\"Fiscal Year 2024 & 2025 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities\" criteria pdf","site:fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents \"2024 & 2025\" BRIC"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Disaster Resilience: FEMA Should Take Additional Steps to Streamline Hazard Mitigation Grants and Assess Program Effects (GAO-21-140)","publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-140","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2021-02-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Ten of 12 interviewed jurisdictions described FEMA mitigation applications as complex and lengthy, and eight cited insufficient applicant technical capacity.","FEMA used benefit-cost analysis and loss-avoidance studies but had gaps in assessing and sharing project effectiveness.","The findings support common assistance and a bounded retrospective evaluation, while remaining nongeneralizable beyond the studied jurisdictions."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Justice40: Additional Efforts Needed to Improve Tribal Applicants' Access to Federal Programs under Environmental Justice Initiative (GAO-24-106511)","publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","url":"https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106511.pdf","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2024-04-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Tribal representatives reported that competitive grant administration and application requirements disadvantage smaller Tribes with limited financial, staff, and technical capacity.","One interviewed Tribe reported spending $13,000 on a grant application, and representatives said better-resourced Tribes tend to submit more competitive applications.","FEMA and other agencies expanded technical assistance, but access barriers, cost shares, consultation, and administrative burdens remained."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Fiscal Year 2024 & 2025 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)","publisher":"Grants.gov / Department of Homeland Security—FEMA","url":"https://simpler.grants.gov/opportunity/bccd8cb3-af60-4773-a5e5-f5a228991289","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-03-25","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FEMA is an identifiable authorizer and funder for competitive pre-disaster mitigation grants to states, territories, Tribal governments, and local governments.","The 2026 opportunity provided $1 billion in program funding, required cost sharing, and had a $150 million award ceiling.","Stafford Act section 203 supplies authority for sustained pre-disaster hazard-mitigation grants, although it does not itself establish authority for the candidate's proposed basin contest rules."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Fiscal Year 2024 BRIC Direct Technical Assistance Program Support Material","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency","url":"https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_hma_bric-dta-program-support-material_012025.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2025-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FEMA offered assistance with benefit-cost analysis, grant writing, climate-resilience planning, needs assessment, and grants management.","The program operationalizes common technical support for communities that otherwise lack capacity, closely paralleling the candidate's arms-race damper.","The source supports assistance feasibility but does not evaluate portfolio scoring or common basin stress tests."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"NOAA Climate Resilience Regional Challenge","publisher":"NOAA Office for Coastal Management","url":"https://www.coast.noaa.gov/funding/resilience-challenge/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"undated; describes awards announced in 2024","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NOAA administered a $573 million competitive resilience program centered on risk reduction, regional coordination, community engagement, and enduring capacity.","The program reports substantial planning, infrastructure, habitat, workforce, research, monitoring, and maintenance investments, demonstrating institutional capacity for regional multi-actor adaptation portfolios.","It is adjacent practice, not evidence that competing applications were jointly optimized by marginal basin contribution."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Flood Risk Management Plans","publisher":"European Climate Adaptation Platform / European Environment Agency and European Commission","url":"https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/metadata/adaptation-options/adaptation-of-flood-management-plans","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2016-08-31; page incorporates later implementation material","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Established European practice evaluates flood risk at river-catchment scale, combines green and grey measures, includes climate scenarios, public participation, and periodic review.","The guidance identifies data availability, legal mandates, cooperation, human resources, and financial resources as implementation constraints.","Flood-risk planning commonly requires hydrologists, modelers, environmental scientists, engineers, planners, and stakeholder consultation over multi-year cycles."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Information-theoretic Portfolio Decision Model for Optimal Flood Management","publisher":"Environmental Modelling & Software; manuscript hosted by Hokkaido University","url":"https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/repo/huscap/all/82843/ConvertinoNardi_Portfolio_EnvSoft_May2019_notracks2.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2019-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The study directly proposes basin-scale selection among feasible combinations of flood-control structures under a budget using environmental, social, and economic criteria.","Its Tiber basin case uses multi-criteria analysis, stochastic optimization, uncertainty analysis, and Pareto frontiers to contrast local decisions with systemic portfolios.","This is substantial prior-art collision with the candidate's portfolio-scoring core, though it does not implement a public grant contest, appeals, anti-collusion rules, common applicant support, or secured liability."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"HEC-WAT Framework","publisher":"U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center","url":"https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/confluence/watdocs/watug/hec-wat-framework","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026; exact page date not stated","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Existing USACE software links hydrologic applications, reproduces computations under varied boundary conditions, treats watersheds as systems, and compares plans using risk analysis.","The software demonstrates technical feasibility of common basin stress cases and system-level plan comparisons.","It does not solve applicant-data interoperability, evaluator legitimacy, confidentiality, Tribal data governance, or causal validation."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Flood effects cross administrative boundaries, basin-scale portfolios can outperform local ranking, and competitive grant capacity advantages are externally visible. GAO documents technical and administrative disparities, EU guidance requires catchment-scale coordination, and primary research directly contrasts local flood decisions with basin portfolios. However, no located source analyzes an actual adaptation-grant round and demonstrates that independent applicant scoring caused downstream risk transfer, duplicated benefits, collusion, or repeat-winner concentration at material prevalence.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"FEMA is a current, statutorily authorized billion-dollar mitigation funder serving the stated municipal and Tribal applicant classes. FEMA and GAO explicitly recognize applicant-capacity and evaluation needs, and FEMA already provides relevant technical assistance. NOAA independently operates regional collaborative resilience competitions. No source shows that any identified administrator has requested or committed to the candidate's full governance bundle.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Information-theoretic Portfolio Decision Model for optimal flood management","similarity":"Directly selects basin-wide combinations of flood-control projects under a budget using systemic environmental, social, and economic value, stochastic analysis, and Pareto optimization.","remaining_difference":"A research decision model rather than a governed public funding contest; it lacks eligibility rules, appeals, anti-collusion referral, applicant assistance, foul penalties, and implementation liability.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"EU Flood Risk Management Plans","similarity":"Established catchment-scale climate-aware flood planning with coordinated measures, public participation, ecological considerations, mapped scenarios, and periodic review.","remaining_difference":"Administrative planning rather than rivalry among applicants for a scarce fund; it does not establish marginal portfolio scoring, hidden tests, or contest sanctions.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"NOAA Climate Resilience Regional Challenge","similarity":"A large competitive adaptation program emphasizing regional collaboration, risk reduction, equity, technical capacity, habitat, monitoring, and implementation.","remaining_difference":"Public evidence does not show joint marginal optimization of competing component proposals under basin hydrographs or the proposed anti-abuse and liability architecture.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"FEMA BRIC plus Direct Technical Assistance","similarity":"Competitive mitigation funding for local and Tribal governments combined with technical help on applications, planning, benefit-cost analysis, and grant management.","remaining_difference":"The located materials describe project funding and assistance, not basin-coupled portfolio selection, downstream-transfer constraints, hidden stress tests, or cross-round conduct monitoring.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},{"name":"USACE HEC-WAT watershed systems analysis","similarity":"Operational software for reproducible, integrated watershed plan comparison under variable boundary conditions and uncertainty.","remaining_difference":"A technical modeling platform, not a grant-governance, due-process, equity, liability, or anti-collusion system.","source_ids":["S8"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For an adaptation fund that retains competition among hydrologically connected jurisdictions, adding a preregistered and audited public-contest layer—common applicant support, joint marginal portfolio selection under held-out basin stresses, explicit risk-transfer constraints, reasons and appeals, anomaly-to-investigation referral, implementation remediation security, and mandatory ex-post recalibration—will improve decision quality over both ordinary independent scoring and basin portfolio optimization alone without worsening access or administrative burden. This combined claim is contrastive and falsifiable, but its effect is untested.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Basin-scale portfolio optimization and watershed systems modeling are technically demonstrated, while FEMA already supplies several needed assistance functions. A nonbinding replay is operationally plausible. Major uncertainties remain: archived proposals may use incompatible boundaries and assumptions; counterfactual downstream effects may be unidentifiable; protected, Tribal, security-sensitive, or proprietary data may not be shareable; optimization and held-out tests may be opaque to applicants; legal authority for appeals, penalties, liability, and interjurisdictional constraints is fund-specific; anomaly screens risk false accusation; and observed outcomes exist only for projects actually built under the baseline.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the failure occurs, redirecting scarce mitigation capital toward lower basin-wide exposure and away from transferred risk could materially protect people, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Realized magnitude is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S6","S7"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Large current funding programs and explicit applicant-capacity assistance show strong pull for mitigation investment and fairer technical access, but not expressed demand for this exact contest architecture.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The governance bundle could add legitimacy, access, and anti-abuse controls to established basin optimization. No comparative evidence yet shows better selections than a competent integrated basin plan or ordinary normalized multi-criteria scoring.","source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The central basin-wide portfolio idea substantially collides with published flood-portfolio research and established integrated basin planning. Distinctiveness survives mainly in the assembled contest-governance layer.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing portfolio methods and watershed modeling platforms make a shadow replay feasible when model-ready data exist. Interoperability, missing counterfactuals, calibration, and computation can still defeat a particular replay.","source_ids":["S4","S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"FEMA and analogous fund administrators possess mitigation-grant authority, and an internal nonbinding replay is plausibly within program-evaluation authority. Basin-specific confidentiality, Tribal consultation/data governance, procurement, appeal, and liability powers are not established.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S6"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The problem components, adopter class, tools, and close prior art are well documented. The decisive evidence requires a proprietary archived application corpus and model files, followed eventually by prospective implementation outcomes.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7","S8"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"A nonbinding, access-controlled shadow replay can leave awards and construction untouched, reveal data and metric failures early, and be discarded if unstable. Public-participation and data-governance safeguards remain mandatory.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The rulebook, data schema, and software framework are reusable, but hydrology, legal authority, stakeholder composition, calibration, and ecological constraints remain basin-specific and expert-intensive.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One nonbinding shadow replay of one completed basin funding round, including protocol preregistration, data inventory, de-identification, two to four conflict-screened evaluators, limited model harmonization, sensitivity analysis, and reporting; excludes new field monitoring and construction.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Archived applications and material model files are available under an authorized data-use arrangement.","The basin already has a usable hydraulic or hydrologic model; rebuilding one would raise the band.","The replay is capped at 1,000 staff/contractor hours and does not change awards.","The $13,000 single-application example and the expert burden described by official sources indicate that a multi-application replay is not an under-$10,000 exercise."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Single-basin contest design before accepting live submissions: legal and Tribal review, common data specification, model and stress-test preparation, rulebook, applicant-support procurement, evaluator training, security controls, appeal process, and dry runs; excludes award capital.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing fund staff and computing infrastructure are reused.","No new basin-wide sensor network or hydraulic model must be built.","Applicant support is limited and common rather than bespoke engineering for every entrant.","Liability instruments and permits remain project-level requirements handled by existing authorities."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Administration of the first live basin round, shared modeling assistance, submission validation, portfolio computation, independent review, audits, appeals, data stewardship, and initial outcome-monitoring setup; excludes grants, remediation security posted by implementers, land, and construction.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A medium-size round has multiple jurisdictions and roughly 10–40 project submissions.","Award capital may be tens or hundreds of millions of dollars but is outside this resource-equivalent operations estimate.","Hydrologic and ecological review requires several disciplines and meaningful stakeholder participation.","No enforcement investigation or major litigation occurs during launch."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Ongoing shared-model maintenance, applicant support, periodic rounds, audit and appeal capacity, monitoring of completed projects, data repository operation, post-contest review, and rubric recalibration for one basin; excludes project awards and construction.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["At least one substantial round or review cycle occurs annually or equivalent effort is averaged across a multi-year cycle.","Monitoring relies primarily on existing gauges, remote sensing, and grantee reporting rather than a new sensor network.","An independent reviewer and specialist panel are retained as needed.","Extensive enforcement, remediation, or litigation costs are excluded."],"source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent official and primary sources support connected basin risk, the weakness of local decisions, grant-capacity disparities, and outcome-assessment gaps, although prevalence of the full proposed failure pattern is not established.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"FEMA is a current statutory mitigation-grant authorizer for the stated government applicant classes, and NOAA independently demonstrates a regional collaborative resilience-funding workflow. Neither has committed to this proposal.","source_ids":["S3","S5"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The surviving claim compares the complete contest-governance layer against original independent ranking, normalized independent rescoring, and basin portfolio optimization without that layer on predefined decision, equity, stability, and burden metrics.","source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"One completed-round shadow replay can be preregistered, access-controlled, time- and cost-capped, compared with explicit alternatives, and discarded without altering awards.","source_ids":["S1","S7","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Shadow analysis can avoid construction and award changes, but a specific administrator must confirm authority to reuse confidential submissions and model files, Tribal consultation and data-governance requirements, evaluator access, and permissible publication. These partner-specific facts were not publicly verified.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S6"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The estimates explicitly separate evidence, startup, live administration, recurring operations, and excluded award/construction capital. Bands are credible resource-equivalent orders of magnitude, but confidence is limited because no source prices this exact replay or contest.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6"]}},"next_evidence_step":"With one willing fund administrator, replay exactly one completed basin round using every eligible archived application. Before accessing identities or outcomes, preregister the basin boundary, common climate assumptions, three comparators—(A) original ranking and awards, (B) independent project rescoring after normalizing assumptions, and (C) joint portfolio selection—the held-out stress hydrographs, missing-data rules, ecological and distributional constraints, evaluator protocol, and burden cap. Use de-identified files with two to four conflict-screened evaluators. Primary endpoints are modeled basin-wide exposed person-depth or expected loss, maximum downstream risk increase, duplicated-benefit share, portfolio robustness, evaluator agreement, selection of smaller/Tribal applicants, and staff hours/cost. Falsify the incremental claim if C fails to improve the preregistered basin endpoint over both A and B, increases any jurisdiction's constrained risk, has portfolio-membership Jaccard stability below 0.70 across reasonable weights/models, has evaluator agreement below 0.75, relies materially on unsupported imputations, worsens access for less-resourced applicants, exceeds 1,000 hours or $250,000, or cannot be reproduced from authorized records. Do not change awards or infer misconduct from anomaly patterns.","blocking_evidence":["No public application-level dataset demonstrates the prevalence or material size of downstream risk transfer, double counting, duplicated protection, collusion, or repeat-winner concentration in a real basin funding round.","No fund administrator has committed an archived round, model files, staff time, or a data-use agreement for the shadow replay.","Basin-specific authority for confidential-data reuse, Tribal consultation and data governance, independent evaluator access, publication, appeals, penalties, and secured liability remains unverified.","No comparative shadow-replay result establishes decision-quality, stability, equity, or administrative-burden advantage over the original and normalized independent-scoring comparators.","Post-project observations cover only projects actually implemented under the baseline, so they cannot directly validate outcomes of unbuilt shadow-selected projects.","No direct cost quotation or staffing plan exists for the proposed replay or live contest.","The effectiveness and false-positive burden of cross-round anti-collusion screening and the market-access effects of implementation liability remain untested."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded search found substantial collision with basin-scale flood portfolio optimization, integrated river-basin flood planning, regional competitive resilience grants, common applicant technical assistance, and watershed systems-analysis software. It did not measure world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact, and absence from these eight sources is not evidence of absence elsewhere.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain a written authority and data-governance determination from one basin fund administrator covering archived submissions, model files, Tribal information, evaluator access, and publication.","Secure one completed round and complete a reproducibility/data-completeness inventory before scoring.","Preregister the three comparators, held-out stresses, endpoints, equity checks, stability thresholds, burden cap, and falsifiers.","Complete the access-controlled shadow replay and publish aggregate results, uncertainty, missing-data dependence, evaluator disagreement, and safeguard failures without changing awards.","If shadow results pass, design a prospective monitored round or phased pilot capable of comparing predicted and realized basin outcomes; otherwise retire or narrow the claim."],"reason":"Web research established a material problem class, credible funders, technical feasibility, and substantial prior-art collision, but it cannot determine whether the complete governance layer improves a real funding decision. The decisive evidence requires proprietary archived applications and models, partner-specific authority determinations, and live or retrospective empirical testing. Under the controller rule, that requires an empirical-research stop rather than further bounded web research."},"proposal_index":1}