{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","cell_id":"incentive_compatible_rule_design__chemistry_materials","arm":"BREADTH_PROBE_ONE_SHOT","candidate_id":"incentive_compatible_rule_design__chemistry_materials__P1","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Readiness-Revealing Reservations for Shared Materials-Characterization Instruments","problem":"Researchers reserving a shared transmission electron microscope can privately know that their specimens, mounting plan, safety documentation, or imaging protocol are not ready, yet still request long priority sessions because unused time carries little cost while booking too little risks a future queue delay. The reservation rule therefore makes inflated, premature requests individually rational even though the facility needs executable sessions.","actors":["Researchers requesting microscope time","Laboratory personnel preparing specimens","Microscopy facility scheduler","Instrument scientists who verify readiness and support sessions","Facility governance committee that hears appeals and approves rule changes"],"observable_state":"Booked sessions can be compared with arrival records, readiness-check completion, actual instrument start and stop times, cancellation timing, and documented failure reasons. The diagnostic state is a pattern in which long or priority reservations are followed by late cancellations, shortened use, or inability to begin because required specimens, holders, approvals, or protocols were not ready.","consequence":"Scarce microscope capacity is stranded or reassigned too late, instrument scientists spend time triaging preventable failures, and other materials experiments wait longer or lose time-sensitive measurement opportunities.","affected_objective":"Allocate shared characterization capacity to executable experiments while preserving access for exploratory work and resource-constrained laboratories.","intervention":"Replace the single reservation path with a transparent self-selection menu. A readiness-certified lane offers normal or priority-length sessions after a short checklist and verifiable preflight evidence; accepting it places a refundable stake of future booking priority at risk if a readiness claim fails for a controllable, predefined reason. An exploratory lane requires less evidence, carries no stake, and provides a shorter staff-assisted session designed for protocol development. Randomized checks validate a small sample of certified claims. Instrument faults, emergencies, ambiguous failures, and documented good-faith surprises do not forfeit the stake. Researchers receive the evidence and may appeal before any consequence is applied. The facility first runs the rule in shadow mode and changes allocations only after governance review.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Strategic participants","domain_realization":"Researchers choose when to request microscope time, which lane to select, and how much readiness to claim."},{"archetype_element":"Private incentives or information","domain_realization":"Requesters know more than the scheduler about specimen completion, protocol maturity, deadline pressure, and the likelihood that a session can start as booked."},{"archetype_element":"Exploitable rule","domain_realization":"A uniform booking process grants scarce time largely from self-reported requirements while imposing little consequence for controllable unreadiness."},{"archetype_element":"Desired outcome specification","domain_realization":"The target is executable instrument time and valid experimental opportunity, not merely completed forms or nominal reservation utilization."},{"archetype_element":"Action and choice set","domain_realization":"Requesters may certify readiness, choose an exploratory session, request a smaller slot, cancel early, arrive unready, or avoid the facility."},{"archetype_element":"Information structure map","domain_realization":"The requester observes preparation status; facility staff observe submitted evidence and session outcomes but cannot cheaply inspect every specimen before booking."},{"archetype_element":"Incentive payoff map","domain_realization":"Certification provides access to longer sessions but exposes future priority to a bounded stake; exploratory selection trades session length for assistance and protection from that stake."},{"archetype_element":"Truthfulness condition","domain_realization":"A requester who expects the experiment to fail the defined readiness test should prefer the exploratory lane over an unsupported readiness certification."},{"archetype_element":"Verification rule","domain_realization":"Preflight artifacts, randomized checks, and coded session outcomes test only specified readiness claims rather than judging scientific success."},{"archetype_element":"Penalty or reward rule","domain_realization":"Verified readiness preserves or returns booking priority; a sustained finding of controllable misrepresentation temporarily reduces priority by a disclosed amount."},{"archetype_element":"Strategic response test","domain_realization":"Shadow analysis tests lane selection, request splitting, superficial checklist compliance, shifted failure classifications, and avoidance by laboratories with fewer resources."},{"archetype_element":"Appeal or exception channel","domain_realization":"No stake is lost until the requester can review the classification, document an exception, and obtain independent reconsideration."},{"archetype_element":"Failure and gaming monitor","domain_realization":"The facility tracks late cancellations, readiness failures, unused booked time, lane switching, appeals, and access by laboratory resource level."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"self_selection_menu","role":"Separates protocol-development sessions from sessions whose requesters are willing and able to substantiate readiness, eliciting private readiness through choice rather than an intrusive universal inspection.","counterfactual_removal":"Without distinct lanes, not-ready and ready requesters face the same terms, so selecting an executable reservation does not reveal useful readiness information."},{"mechanism_slug":"deposit_bond_or_stake","role":"Places a bounded amount of future booking priority at risk so an unsupported readiness certification has an expected private cost while avoiding a cash charge.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a stake, a requester can retain the upside of a long priority reservation while transferring most of the cost of controllable unreadiness to the facility and other users."},{"mechanism_slug":"blind_or_randomized_review_rule","role":"Uses unpredictable verification of certified claims to preserve credibility without requiring universal pre-inspection.","counterfactual_removal":"Without verification, certification can become another costless assertion; with universal inspection, staff burden could erase the capacity the rule is intended to protect."}],"causal_chain":["The current uniform booking rule gives requesters the upside of securing ample microscope time while externalizing much of the cost of controllable unreadiness.","Researchers hold private information about whether specimens and protocols can pass a defined preflight test.","The two-lane menu gives not-ready requesters a legitimate, lower-risk exploratory option rather than forcing a binary claim of readiness.","A bounded future-priority stake makes unsupported certification less attractive, while verified readiness returns the stake.","Random checks and recorded session outcomes make the consequence credible without inspecting every experiment.","Exceptions and appeals separate strategic misrepresentation from instrument faults, emergencies, and uncertain scientific outcomes.","If the payoff difference is calibrated correctly, selecting the lane that matches actual readiness becomes the requester's better response.","Lane choices then convey scheduling information, allowing the facility to match session length and staff support to executable or exploratory work.","Monitoring for request splitting, avoidance, and unequal burden detects whether participants create new gaming paths or exit."],"baseline":"A single reservation queue based on requester-entered duration and readiness information, supplemented by reminders and discretionary staff intervention after late cancellation or failed setup. The baseline asks users to book responsibly but does not systematically change the payoff from an unsupported readiness claim.","nearest_rivals":["Mandatory readiness checklist for every reservation: gathers information but remains gameable if unchecked and may burden exploratory users without changing their best response.","Universal staff pre-inspection: can verify readiness directly but consumes specialist time and may be disproportionate for routine sessions.","Larger penalties for every cancellation or failed session: changes consequences without distinguishing controllable misrepresentation from legitimate uncertainty, equipment failure, or emergency.","Simple reservation caps or shorter default sessions: limits the size of any single loss but does not elicit private readiness or route exploratory work to suitable support."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate's distinctive causal claim is that a protected exploratory lane, paired with a bounded stake and probabilistic verification for readiness-certified bookings, can make accurate self-sorting more attractive than premature certification; reminders, checklists, caps, or undifferentiated penalties do not by themselves create that truth-revealing choice structure.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The microscopy facility director may authorize a reversible shadow evaluation; any change to allocation priority or user consequences requires approval from the facility governance committee under existing access and due-process rules.","authorized_first_step":"Analyze a bounded set of de-identified historical booking outcomes and invite current users to make nonbinding shadow lane selections; do not alter reservations, access, fees, or priority.","excluded_actions":["Charging cash deposits","Withholding already approved instrument access","Penalizing scientific failure or an unexpected negative result","Forfeiting priority automatically without human review and appeal","Expanding specimen surveillance beyond the stated readiness evidence","Applying the rule to safety violations governed by separate mandatory procedures","Using laboratory prestige, seniority, or scientific topic as a readiness proxy"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the evaluation if shadow classifications cannot reliably separate controllable unreadiness from scientific uncertainty, if the exploratory lane creates a material access barrier for less-resourced laboratories, or if users cannot understand the rule. Because the first step is nonbinding, rollback consists of deleting the shadow classifications on the announced schedule and retaining the existing queue."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Booking loss is mainly caused by instrument breakdowns, volatile specimen behavior, emergency disruptions, or insufficient preparation support rather than strategic overstatement of readiness; lane incentives would then target the wrong cause.","problem_falsifier":"In the bounded record review, controllable readiness failures do not account for a decision-relevant share of stranded time, or requesters lack advance private information that distinguishes such failures from unavoidable uncertainty.","intervention_falsifier":"In shadow choices, users who later meet the readiness definition do not sort toward certification more often than users who later fail it, or the sorting signal disappears after accounting for laboratory resources and experiment type.","risks":["Researchers may split one long request into several smaller requests to reduce stake exposure.","Users may optimize superficial preflight artifacts while leaving unmeasured readiness risks unresolved.","Future-priority stakes may burden laboratories with fewer samples, less staffing, or time-sensitive specimens more heavily.","Fear of misclassification may push legitimate exploratory science away from the facility.","Staff may classify ambiguous failures as requester-controlled to protect utilization statistics.","Publishing too much detail about randomized checks may reveal verification gaps, while too little transparency may undermine trust.","The rule may shift congestion into the exploratory lane rather than improve allocation.","Extrinsic consequences may weaken collegial norms or discourage early disclosure of preparation problems."]},"next_evidence_step":"For one instrument and no more than 60 completed reservations from a fixed recent interval, have two reviewers independently code cancellation timing, booked versus used time, stated failure cause, whether the cause was controllable under a draft readiness definition, and whether pre-session records contained a detectable readiness signal. Then ask the associated users, with no operational consequence, which draft lane they would have selected. Proceed only to governance review if reviewer agreement is adequate, controllable unreadiness is distinguishable from scientific uncertainty, shadow choices predict the predefined readiness outcome, and no laboratory-resource group appears systematically denied a viable lane.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed; runtime isolation prohibits inspection of other proposals, and this record contains exactly one one-shot candidate.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}