{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__aviation_aeronautics:P4:v0","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__aviation_aeronautics","search_queries":["FAA aircraft diversion coordination airport operator emergency services diversion recovery guide","EUROCONTROL airport collaborative decision making information sharing diversion flights","ACRP aircraft diversion planning airport coordination guide","FAA pilot in command diversion authority 14 CFR 91.3 ATC alternate airport","site:nap.nationalacademies.org airport diversion planning coordination aircraft diversions ground handling","site:asrs.arc.nasa.gov diversion airport communication dispatch coordination incident report study","site:faa.gov airport emergency plan aircraft diversion coordination ground handlers dispatch","aircraft diversion coordination airport operations emergency services research paper","\"Managing a Flight Diversion with an Emergency Response\" pdf","\"Coordinated Regional Diversion Airport/Airlines Network\" PDF","site:airportscouncil.org diversion coordination airport airlines network IROPS","site:nap.nationalacademies.org \"flight diversion\" emergency response","ACRP Research Report 229 Airport Collaborative Decision Making manage adverse conditions","EUROCONTROL Airport Corner diversion capability request airport operations coordination details","airport operations control center diversion capability coordination real time aircraft diversion airport","regional aircraft diversion coordination network airport airlines IROPS current practice","\"Addressing IROPS Diversion-Related Extended Delay Events\" \"TRB\"","site:onlinepubs.trb.org \"Coordinated Regional Airports/Airlines Diversion Network\"","site:nationalacademies.org/publications/26090 Airport Collaborative Decision Making adverse conditions","doi 10.17226/26090"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Managing a Flight Diversion with an Emergency Response at Small, Non-Hub, or General Aviation Airports","publisher":"National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine / Transportation Research Board","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/26900","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2023","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Unexpected diversions affect airport operations across routine, incident, and emergency conditions.","ACRP Synthesis 121 documents practices used by small, non-hub, and general-aviation airports to plan for and respond to diversions.","Airport operators and emergency-response partners are identifiable users of diversion-coordination practices."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions","publisher":"National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine / Transportation Research Board","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/26090","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2021","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["ACDM already uses shared information among airport operators, ATC, flight operators, ground handlers, fixed-base operators, and others for real-time coordination and decisions.","The report supplies an implementation roadmap, templates, leadership structure, and toolbox.","Sixty-seven percent of surveyed airports lacked regular meetings with flight operators, interviews found deficient real-time coordination, and nearly all survey participants would consider meetings to improve collaboration."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"ATFCM Operations Manual, MAINT-2","publisher":"EUROCONTROL Network Management Directorate","url":"https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/eurocontrol-atfcm-operations-manual-maint-2-wef-20240618_0.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2024-06-18","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["EUROCONTROL already operates an Airport Corner Diversion Capabilities procedure for tactical and pre-tactical diversion situations.","Its stated objective is harmonized, structured, traceable collection and real-time sharing of airport diversion capability information.","The procedure electronically contacts dedicated airport points of contact, publishes updates, falls back to telephone when necessary, and archives a request when the event ends."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Addressing IROPS Diversion-Related Extended Delay Events Through a Coordinated Regional Airports/Airlines Diversion Network","publisher":"Transportation Research Board paper, hosted by ResearchGate","url":"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281214486_Addressing_IROPS_Diversion-Related_Extended_Delay_Events_Through_a_Coordinated_Regional_AirportsAirlines_Diversion_Network","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2011","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The paper proposes a Coordinated Regional Diversion Airport/Airlines Network led by a large hub and including regional diversion airports and carriers.","It proposes real-time status communication, defined roles, advance warning, airport capacity limits, recurrent training, post-event review, and regional contingency plans.","It reports that DFW and ATL had initiated regional IROPS coordination involving diversion airports, while noting that more formal plans and agreements might be needed.","The paper states that coordination-only benefits may be possible with limited initial investment, while physical capacity expansion can require equipment, facilities, and personnel."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Airport Collaborative Decision-Making (A-CDM)","publisher":"EUROCONTROL","url":"https://www.eurocontrol.int/concept/airport-collaborative-decision-making","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"undated; implementation information current when accessed","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A-CDM exchanges accurate, timely information among airport operators, aircraft operators, ground handlers, ATC, and the Network Manager.","EUROCONTROL reports full A-CDM implementation at 34 European airports.","EUROCONTROL provides specifications, implementation guidance, impact assessment, and safety-case material; a lighter Advanced ATC Tower option exists for smaller airports."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"AC 91-70A: Oceanic and Remote Continental Airspace Operations","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac%2091-70a.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2010-08-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Diversions can require coordination across medical capability, customs, fuel, inspections, dispatch release, maintenance release, and ATC clearance.","Operational feasibility cannot be created merely by faster communications; authoritative and physical dependencies remain."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"14 CFR § 91.3 — Responsibility and Authority of the Pilot in Command","publisher":"Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / U.S. Government Publishing Office","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-A/section-91.3","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"current through 2026-07-30 when accessed","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to operation of the aircraft.","In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from Part 91 to the extent required.","A broker must remain informational and cannot displace pilot authority."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Airport Operations","publisher":"Airports Council International–North America","url":"https://airportscouncil.org/advocacy/airport-operations/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"undated; site copyright 2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Airport operators coordinate with regulators, airlines, flight operators, ground-service providers, and public authorities for safe operations.","Disruptive-event readiness requires substantial advance coordination.","ACI-NA states that during events it acts as a conduit for critical airport operational and facility information among member airports, FAA ATCSCC, and airline system operations centers, demonstrating an existing institutional analogue and credible adopters."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Diversion coordination is visibly consequential and multi-organizational. S1 documents airport practices for unexpected diversions; S6 enumerates independent operational dependencies; S2 reports deficient real-time airport–operator coordination; and S8 describes substantial advance coordination for disruptions. The sources do not quantify the prevalence or duration of the candidate's narrower pre-commitment, precautionary-diversion coordination delay, so that specific incidence remains an evidence gap.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Airport operators, operators, ground handlers, ATC, EUROCONTROL, and ACI-NA are identifiable adopters or facilitators. S2 reports broad willingness among surveyed airports to improve collaboration, S3 documents an operational diversion-capability service, and S8 identifies an existing industry conduit. No named North American airport, airline, regulator, or funder is shown requesting this exact broker or committing to the proposed tabletop.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"EUROCONTROL Airport Corner Diversion Capabilities procedure","similarity":"Very close operational analogue: dedicated airport contacts, structured and traceable requests, real-time capability updates, publication to stakeholders, telephone fallback, and case archival during diversion events.","remaining_difference":"The candidate adds a bounded single-case workspace with authentication, explicit confirmation expiry, broader receiving-service dependencies, workload monitoring, and a non-authority summary aimed specifically at precautionary diversions.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Coordinated Regional Diversion Airport/Airlines Network (CRDAAN)","similarity":"Near-direct conceptual collision: a hub-led regional network of airlines and diversion airports, real-time status communication, regional plans, capacity limits, recurrent training, and post-event learning.","remaining_difference":"CRDAAN emphasizes regional IROPS and post-landing/passenger contingency capacity; the candidate narrows the service to pre-commitment assembly of authoritative receiving status and adds provenance, expiry, eligibility, saturation, and restoration controls.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Airport Collaborative Decision Making for adverse conditions","similarity":"Established multi-stakeholder information-sharing and real-time coordination practice with implementation templates, leadership structures, operating centers, and governance.","remaining_difference":"General ACDM is broader and commonly focused on turnaround, departure, capacity, and adverse-condition management rather than a neutral regional broker for one precautionary-diversion request.","source_ids":["S2","S5"]},{"name":"ACI-NA disruptive-event information conduit","similarity":"An aviation industry association already conveys critical airport operational and facility information among airports, FAA system operations, and airline operations centers during disruptions.","remaining_difference":"The public description does not establish per-flight authenticated workspaces, resource-owner confirmations, expiry semantics, or the candidate's selectivity and turnover assay.","source_ids":["S8"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"A narrow claim remains: for eligible precautionary diversions, an authenticated, expiry-aware, non-authoritative regional case workspace will reduce time to an accurate shared receiving-status picture by at least 20% versus both ordinary serial coordination and a best-available ACDM/Airport-Corner-style structured information-sharing process, without any false confirmation, missed dependency, authority misunderstanding, delayed emergency escalation, privacy incident, or increase in median participant workload. This is contrastive and falsifiable but is an implementation refinement, not a demonstrated new practice.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"S3 demonstrates that structured, traceable, real-time diversion-capability collection with dedicated contacts, fallback channels, and archival is operationally feasible; S2 and S5 show that multi-stakeholder CDM governance and tooling are mature; S4 shows the regional-network design has long-standing precedent. S7 supports the proposed non-authority boundary, and S6 shows why authoritative dependencies must remain outside the broker. Missing evidence includes cross-organization authentication and data agreements, human-factors validation under time pressure, concurrency behavior, privacy/security review, and operational performance against a strong prior-art comparator.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"On a 1–5 scale, faster and more accurate assembly of receiving status could preserve attention and option time in consequential diversions, although candidate-specific delay prevalence and realized safety effects are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Airports broadly express interest in better collaboration, and EUROCONTROL and ACI-NA already perform related coordination functions; pull for this exact service is not documented.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Authentication, expiry, provenance, case-level workload controls, and explicit non-authority semantics may improve existing systems, but no comparative evidence shows an advantage over Airport Corner, ACDM, or CRDAAN.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The regional diversion-network concept and operational diversion-capability workflow already exist. The remaining distinction is a narrow governed implementation bundle.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing official portals and CDM implementations establish feasibility of structured requests, shared updates, contact routing, fallback communication, and archival; secure multi-party integration remains nontrivial.","source_ids":["S3","S5"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Airport operators, airlines, and network organizations can sponsor exercises, but operational deployment requires agreements among multiple independent authorities and must preserve pilot and local operational powers.","source_ids":["S2","S7","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"A synthetic tabletop is readily bounded and auditable, but the distinctive incremental claim requires participant fieldwork and comparison against mature prior art, not further web search alone.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal retains established emergency and bilateral channels and can be tested without live aircraft; clean fallback is plausible if users clearly understand the broker's non-operational status.","source_ids":["S3","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Shared contracts and reusable workflows are scalable, but jurisdictional differences, round-the-clock staffing, partner onboarding, local resource semantics, and concurrent-event saturation constrain regional expansion.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and run a non-operational, three-arm tabletop of at most 12 matched scenarios, with simulated roles, independent observers, scoring, and an after-action report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Six to twelve participating role representatives contribute compensated or resource-equivalent preparation and exercise time.","Existing videoconferencing or exercise facilities are used.","No live operational integration, certification, procurement, or sensitive flight data are involved.","This is a screening exercise and is not powered to estimate rare safety-event rates."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Governance design, legal and data-sharing work, threat modeling, prototype workspace, contact validation, message contract, training, and onboarding for three airports and two operator-control functions.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A configurable commercial or government-approved collaboration platform is used rather than a new safety-critical aviation system.","Physical airport capacity, radios, and emergency infrastructure are excluded.","Participant organizations absorb part of governance and subject-matter-expert time.","No direct vendor quotations or organization-specific labor rates were located."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Production-grade regional launch including secure integrations, redundancy, audit and retention controls, training and exercises, 24/7 or equivalent duty coverage, incident response, and independent safety/human-factors validation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains limited to a bounded regional network.","At least four-to-six trained full-time-equivalent staff plus management, engineering, security, legal, and training support are required for resilient coverage.","Existing ATC, dispatch, airport-command, and emergency channels remain unchanged.","Certification obligations depend on whether the system is kept advisory and outside safety-critical command paths."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Duty staffing, platform operations, cybersecurity, contact and capability refresh, exercises, audits, partner governance, incident review, retraining, and replacement coverage.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Regional coverage is continuous or has equivalent on-call redundancy.","Recurring cost excludes new gates, rescue equipment, ground-handling equipment, airport construction, and other physical capacity.","Partner membership fees or in-kind contributions may redistribute but do not eliminate resource-equivalent cost.","No direct operating budget for an equivalent case-level broker was publicly verified."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent research and official guidance establish that diversions affect airport operations and require coordination across numerous operational dependencies; general real-time coordination gaps are documented.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Airport operators and operator-control functions are identifiable users; EUROCONTROL operates a close diversion-capability workflow, while ACI-NA already serves as an information conduit during disruptions.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate can be tested against both serial coordination and an Airport-Corner/ACDM-style comparator on time, accuracy, workload, authority comprehension, and safety-critical errors. The claim is narrow because regional diversion coordination is established prior art.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A synthetic, non-operational, matched-scenario tabletop can be limited to 12 cases, three simulated airports, two operator functions, fixed roles, predefined halts, and complete claim reconstruction.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step can avoid live aircraft and operational channels, preserve ordinary and emergency procedures, and explicitly retain pilot authority. Live deployment would still require security, privacy, human-factors, and multi-party authority validation.","source_ids":["S6","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The four scopes are bounded and broad resource-equivalent bands are plausible, but no direct budget, staffing model, vendor quotation, or 2026 compensation benchmark for an equivalent broker was verified.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Run a preregistered, non-operational tabletop with no more than 12 matched synthetic scenarios across three simulated receiving airports and two simulated operator-control functions. Randomize each matched scenario among (A) current serial/bilateral coordination, (B) a best-available prior-art comparator using structured Airport-Corner/ACDM-style shared capability information without the broker's reconciliation layer, and (C) the full authenticated, expiry-aware broker workflow. Include incomplete intake, stale contact, contradictory resource reports, communications loss, an ineligible emergency, and two simultaneous eligible cases. Freeze eligibility, authority definitions, message semantics, status expiry, capacity limits, scoring, and automatic halts. Measure time to independently reconstructable accurate status, contact attempts, repeated explanations, unresolved and missed dependencies, false confirmations, improper admissions, escalation latency, authority-comprehension errors, workload by role, recovery time, and concurrency degradation. Falsify incremental advantage if arm C fails to improve median time by at least 20% against both A and B, increases median participant workload, or produces any false authoritative confirmation, missed safety dependency, delayed emergency escalation, privacy exposure, or authority displacement. Treat a pass only as justification for a larger partnered simulation, not live-flight authorization.","blocking_evidence":["No source quantifies how often eligible precautionary diversions experience the candidate's specific pre-commitment coordination delay or how much option time is lost.","No named airport, airline, regulator, or funder has committed to sponsor or adopt this exact broker.","No evidence compares the proposed broker with EUROCONTROL Airport Corner, mature ACDM, or an implemented regional diversion network.","Cross-organizational authentication, data provenance, retention, privacy, cybersecurity, and liability arrangements have not been validated.","Human-factors evidence is absent for summary interpretation, authority comprehension, workload, simultaneous cases, communications outages, and stale or conflicting information under realistic time pressure.","No direct 2026 staffing plan, vendor estimate, integration quotation, or recurring operating budget supports the cost bands.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact are unmeasured."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes substantial prior art and operational practice for regional diversion coordination, airport collaborative decision-making, structured real-time diversion-capability requests, and institutional information conduits. It does not establish exhaustive world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact. The only remaining boundary is the candidate's specific combination of per-flight authentication, provenance and expiry, non-authoritative reconciliation, saturation monitoring, and post-case restoration for precautionary diversions; its novelty and superiority remain unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_DIFFUSION","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Reframe the work as local adoption and adaptation of established ACDM, Airport Corner, and regional IROPS-diversion practices rather than as a new regional-broker concept.","Document a function-by-function gap analysis against EUROCONTROL Airport Corner, ACRP ACDM guidance, and CRDAAN before building anything.","Secure a named multi-party exercise sponsor and written participation from airport operations, operator control, emergency services, ground handling, maintenance, and authority representatives.","Execute the three-arm tabletop with preregistered thresholds and independent reconstruction of every status claim.","Complete privacy, cybersecurity, human-factors, liability, and authority-boundary reviews before any operational pilot.","Obtain organization-specific staffing and integration estimates to replace the low-confidence cost bands."],"reason":"Bounded web research finds the central concept already described and partly operationalized: CRDAAN is a near-direct regional diversion-network proposal, EUROCONTROL operates a structured real-time diversion-capability workflow, ACDM is widely implemented, and ACI-NA already serves as a disruptive-event information conduit. The remaining authenticated, expiry-aware case-workspace refinement may be useful, but it is an adoption/configuration hypothesis requiring local empirical testing rather than a distinct innovation opportunity."},"proposal_index":4}