{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","cell_id":"priority_based_admission__chemistry_materials","arm":"BREADTH_PROBE_ONE_SHOT","candidate_id":"priority_based_admission__chemistry_materials__P1","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Decay-Window Admission for Shared Inert-Atmosphere Diffraction","problem":"A materials laboratory has fewer operator-assisted inert-transfer powder-diffraction windows than submitted samples. Some newly synthesized, air-sensitive or metastable samples may change phase before a later window, while other eligible samples remain stable for days. When every submission competes on arrival time or ordinary reservations, stable samples can consume the immediately usable windows and leave the original phase of a short-lived sample unmeasured.","actors":["Materials researchers submitting samples","Shared-instrument facility scientist","Laboratory safety officer","Research leads responsible for disputed classifications"],"observable_state":"At the admission boundary for each operator-assisted inert-transfer window, the facility can observe the waiting submissions, synthesis timestamps, containment and safety readiness, documented storage conditions, evidence supporting each claimed stability window, estimated time until unacceptable phase change, replacement feasibility, waiting time, and the number of protected and ordinary windows remaining.","consequence":"A time-sensitive sample can transform before characterization, eliminating the opportunity to identify its as-synthesized phase and forcing resynthesis when resynthesis is possible; meanwhile stable samples may receive scarce immediate access without comparable loss from delay.","affected_objective":"Preserve opportunities to characterize as-synthesized, decay-prone material states while maintaining safe operation, auditable allocation, and bounded access for stable samples.","intervention":"Place an explicit admission gate before same-day inert-transfer diffraction windows. Classify only safety-ready submissions into three documented classes: P1 when supported evidence indicates that the sample may cross its acceptable phase-change limit before two more instrument cycles; P2 when it is time-sensitive but has a longer margin; and P3 when no near-term change is supported. Hold one of every four operator-assisted windows for P1 submissions until 30 minutes before loading, then release an unused hold to the longest-waiting eligible submission. Within P1, admit the submission with the least remaining documented stability time; use a logged lottery for ties. Send nonadmitted samples to the ordinary queue, an available compatible instrument, continued controlled storage, or a planned resynthesis path. The facility scientist records the evidence and decision, permits review by a second scientist, and increases waiting priority over time so P2 and P3 samples cannot be deferred indefinitely.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Constrained admission boundary","domain_realization":"Entry into an operator-assisted inert-atmosphere sample-loading window on the shared diffractometer."},{"archetype_element":"Candidates differing in priority-relevant attributes","domain_realization":"Eligible samples differ in supported time-to-phase-change, replacement feasibility, and accumulated waiting time."},{"archetype_element":"Explicit classification and threshold","domain_realization":"P1 eligibility requires safety readiness plus evidence that the acceptable material state may be lost before two additional instrument cycles."},{"archetype_element":"Reserved scarce capacity","domain_realization":"One in four operator-assisted windows is temporarily protected for qualifying P1 samples."},{"archetype_element":"Defined handling for nonadmitted candidates","domain_realization":"Deferred samples enter the ordinary queue, remain under controlled storage, move to a compatible instrument, or receive a documented resynthesis plan."},{"archetype_element":"Review and correction","domain_realization":"A second facility scientist can review the submitted evidence and reverse a classification before the sample's viable window closes."},{"archetype_element":"Starvation safeguard","domain_realization":"Waiting-time adjustment and release of unused protected windows progressively improve access for P2 and P3 samples."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"priority_queue","role":"Orders safety-ready submissions using supported remaining stability time, then accumulated waiting time and a logged tie-break rule.","counterfactual_removal":"Without priority ordering, arrival time or informal pressure again determines which sample receives the next viable window."},{"mechanism_slug":"reserved_capacity_fraction","role":"Protects a defined share of near-term inert-transfer windows from being consumed by stable submissions while releasing unused capacity shortly before loading.","counterfactual_removal":"Without protected capacity, advance bookings by stable samples can occupy every window before a qualifying decay-prone sample appears."},{"mechanism_slug":"review_or_appeal_path","role":"Allows a second scientist to correct unsupported or mistaken stability classifications using the same recorded evidence.","counterfactual_removal":"Without review, classification errors become opaque gatekeeping and may irreversibly waste a sample's measurement opportunity."},{"mechanism_slug":"waiting_time_adjustment","role":"Raises the admission standing of deferred P2 and P3 submissions as they wait.","counterfactual_removal":"Without aging, a continuing stream of P1 submissions could starve stable but legitimate work."}],"causal_chain":["Operator-assisted inert-transfer diffraction windows are scarce while eligible samples differ in how rapidly delay destroys the state to be measured.","Arrival-order admission allows stable submissions to consume windows whose delay cost is low.","Evidence-based classification makes the remaining measurement window observable at the admission boundary.","Temporary capacity reservation prevents all near-term windows from being committed before qualifying decay-prone samples can enter.","Priority admission allocates protected windows to safety-ready samples facing the earliest supported state loss.","Release, rerouting, review, and waiting-time adjustment constrain idle capacity, classification error, and starvation.","If the classifications are informative, more viable as-synthesized states should reach measurement before their documented limits without silently denying stable samples."],"baseline":"Ordinary advance booking supplemented by first-come-first-served handling of cancellations, with urgent exceptions negotiated informally between submitters and facility staff.","nearest_rivals":["A pure priority schedule that reorders every accepted booking but reserves no capacity for samples that appear after the calendar fills.","A permanently dedicated air-sensitive-sample instrument, which expands or partitions capacity rather than governing admission to the existing shared bottleneck.","Longer controlled storage or improved encapsulation, which attempts to extend sample lifetime rather than allocate scarce measurement entry.","A first-come-first-served queue with occasional discretionary emergency overrides, which lacks explicit evidence thresholds, protected capacity, and auditable review."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate's distinctive claim is that supported risk of losing the material state should govern admission into protected near-term instrument capacity, not merely the service order of samples already admitted. Its value therefore depends on reservation at the boundary plus defined handling and review, rather than on generic urgency labeling or queue sorting alone.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The shared-instrument facility director may approve the policy; the facility scientist may classify and admit samples only within existing instrument, containment, and laboratory-safety rules.","authorized_first_step":"Run a shadow classification on historical submissions and a prospective paper queue without changing bookings, access rights, sample handling, or instrument operation.","excluded_actions":["Bypassing chemical compatibility, radiation, pressure, containment, or operator-training requirements","Opening, moving, or measuring samples without the submitter's and facility's existing authorization","Cancelling existing reservations during the first evidence step","Treating prestige, funding source, seniority, or informal pressure as priority evidence","Guaranteeing preservation of a sample or success of a measurement"],"halt_rollback":"Halt the shadow test if required metadata cannot be collected without exposing confidential research, if reviewers cannot reproduce classifications from recorded evidence, or if the rule conflicts with safety policy. Because the first step changes no bookings, rollback consists of deleting or restricting the pilot classification sheet according to the facility's data rules and retaining the current booking process."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Historical cases show that claimed stability windows do not predict whether samples remain in an acceptable phase at measurement, or that almost all delayed samples can be reproduced or preserved without meaningful loss.","problem_falsifier":"The bottleneck is not admission to operator-assisted inert-transfer windows—for example, there is normally spare same-day capacity, or delays arise mainly after admission from instrument downtime, analysis backlog, or unsafe sample preparation.","intervention_falsifier":"In a preregistered shadow replay, the policy does not admit a greater share of samples before their independently specified stability limits than the baseline, or it does so only by producing unacceptable idle windows, review burden, or prolonged deferral of P2 and P3 samples.","risks":["Submitters may exaggerate instability or understate replacement feasibility to obtain P1 status.","Decay evidence may favor well-resourced groups that can perform preliminary stability studies.","A wrong low-priority classification may cause irreversible loss of a material state.","Protected windows may sit idle or create disruptive last-minute loading work.","Repeated P1 arrivals may delay stable samples despite waiting-time adjustment.","Stability metadata may disclose sensitive synthesis results.","The two-cycle threshold and one-in-four reservation may be brittle across instruments or workloads.","Facility staff may apply evidentiary standards inconsistently."]},"next_evidence_step":"Using at most eight recent weeks of one facility's de-identified submission and loading records, have two facility scientists independently assign shadow classes from information that would have been available at submission. Replay the actual window sequence under the stated reservation, release, tie-break, and waiting rules. Compare baseline and shadow assignments on whether loading occurred before each submitter's independently recorded acceptable-state deadline, idle protected windows, inter-reviewer disagreement, reversals, and maximum deferral by class. Do not alter live bookings; stop after the bounded replay and review the discrepancies before considering any operational pilot.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Runtime-isolated one-shot candidate; no repository, prior proposal, other cell, or prior-art comparison was performed.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}