{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_external_scrutiny_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology","opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__A","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["selective fish passage invasive species seasonal barrier native fish screened fishway","fish passage barriers invasive species conflict selective passage FishPass","temporary seasonal fish passage native migratory fish invasive species barrier","fishway selective passage non target invasive fish automated sorting"],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["\"selective fish passage\" trap sort seasonal operation fishway invasive native","site:glfc.org FishPass selective passage barrier default operation sort native invasive","fishway operational season closed outside migration season invasive fish passage","fish passage translocation pathogen disease risk biosecurity screening native fish official guidance"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["older fishway terminology trap-and-haul sorting weir native fish invasive lamprey barrier","fish ladder fish pass trap-and-sort capture-translocation selective fragmentation","isolation management intentional fragmentation invasive fish exclusion barrier"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["fish passage barriers invasive species conflict selective passage FishPass","fishway operational season closed outside migration season invasive fish passage","fish passage permits barrier operator fisheries authority invasive species risk assessment","fish health checks moving fish pathogen permit official guidance"],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["paso selectivo peces invasores nativos escala de peces barrera estacional","passage sélectif poissons espèces envahissantes passe à poissons tri saisonnier","selektiver Fischaufstieg invasive Arten Fischpass saisonal Barriere","passagem seletiva peixes invasores nativos escada para peixes"],"source_ids":["S2","S5","S7"],"no_result_note":"Non-English searches surfaced regional fish-pass terminology and hydraulically selective designs, but no source closer than the retained Canadian operating examples and global review. Regional Canadian and New Zealand first-party sources were retained for directness."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["fishway fish disease pathogen upstream passage risk monitoring invasive species","trap and haul fish disease screening pathogen passage barrier","selective fish passage screen seasonal monitoring tagged fish","fish passage permits barrier operator fisheries authority invasive species risk assessment"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S7","S8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Reopening Rivers for Migratory Fish","url":"https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/reopening-rivers-migratory-fish","publisher":"NOAA Fisheries, Office of Habitat Conservation","date_or_year":"Updated 2026-06-30","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Human-made dams and culverts often block migration to spawning and rearing habitat.","Failure to reach habitat can prevent reproduction and population maintenance or growth.","Barrier removal and passage structures are recognized restoration interventions."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"The Use of Barriers to Limit the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Animal Species: A Global Review","url":"https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.611631/full","publisher":"Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution","date_or_year":"2021-02-09","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Exclusion barriers have been used since the 1950s to control aquatic invasive species, but can also harm native organisms.","The review found that only 25% of studies evaluated effects on native species and only 5% used robust before-after-control-impact designs.","Selective-passage effectiveness is context-dependent, laboratory performance can fail in the field, and longer, stronger monitoring is needed.","Historical terms include selective fragmentation, intentional fragmentation, isolation management, and aquatic-invasive-species exclusion barriers."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Single-Stream Recycling Inspires Selective Fish Passage Solutions for the Connectivity Conundrum in Aquatic Ecosystems","url":"https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/10/871/5899942","publisher":"Oxford University Press for the American Institute of Biological Sciences","date_or_year":"2020-09-16","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["A seasonally operated trap-and-sort fishway at Big Carp River, Ontario, is an existing selective-passage example.","Screens, image recognition, seasonal barriers, traps, hydraulics, and other traits can be combined to sort desirable from undesirable fish.","Manual trap-and-sort is an established species-selective method; reported desired-fish passage efficiencies vary widely and handling can harm fish.","Selective configurations are site-dependent and require monitoring, adjustment, and attention to broader ecosystem objectives."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Barriers","url":"https://lampreycontrol.org/barriers.php","publisher":"Great Lakes Fishery Commission","date_or_year":"Accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["The commission has constructed about 50 sea-lamprey barriers and roughly 20 other dams have been modified to block lamprey migration.","Some barriers use trap-and-sort fishways that remove invasive sea lamprey while moving desirable fish upstream.","The commission explicitly recognizes the tradeoff between improved connectivity and invasive-species spread.","The commission coordinates with state, provincial, tribal, and federal fishery-management agencies."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Fishway — The Fishway at Princess Point","url":"https://www.rbg.ca/stewardship/conservation-and-preservation/fishway/","publisher":"Royal Botanical Gardens","date_or_year":"Accessed 2026-08-04; 2026 operating schedule","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["The Cootes Paradise Fishway has operated since 1997 as a fish strainer that excludes large invasive common carp while allowing native fish and salmonids to move.","The operator reports exclusion of more than 95% of common carp since installation.","Operation is seasonal and scheduled, with partial opening during the cool season and managed fish lifts during migration months.","This is a routine implementation of substantially the proposed selective, seasonal problem-intervention package."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"FishPass: Research Plan","url":"https://www.glfc.org/pubs/pdfs/research/FishPass_Research_Plan_02_28_2019.pdf","publisher":"Great Lakes Fishery Commission","date_or_year":"2019-02","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["FishPass is an adaptable platform for selectively passing desirable fish while blocking or removing undesirable fish.","Its plan combines phenological, behavioral, physiological, and morphological sorting, including screens and barriers.","The applied phase uses adaptive management, repeated treatment assessment, passage and community monitoring, and modification based on prior results.","The plan states that configurations must be site-specific and that manual trap-and-sort is already the known species-selective baseline."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Barriers to Protect Native Species and Habitats: Fish Passage Management","url":"https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/habitats/freshwater/fish-passage-management/barriers-to-protect-native-species-and-habitats/","publisher":"New Zealand Department of Conservation","date_or_year":"Accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Natural and built barriers may legitimately protect native biodiversity from invasive fish.","Barrier planning requires specialist advice, consultation with the department, and potentially resource consents.","Monitoring is necessary to verify exclusion performance and detect harm to upstream or downstream communities.","Maintenance, flood vulnerability, existing upstream invaders, and cumulative effects must be considered."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Fish Health Checks: Before Moving Fish into Inland Waters","url":"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fish-health-checks","publisher":"UK Environment Agency and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs","date_or_year":"Published 2014-05-16; updated 2026-03-24","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Permitted fish movements may require representative health checks for pathogens and disease.","Health checks reduce but do not eliminate the risk of introducing pathogens.","Certain pathogen findings prohibit movement or restrict it to already affected or enclosed waters.","Fish-movement permits and competent fisheries and health authorities are identifiable authorizers."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The general problem is well documented: human barriers can block native fish from spawning or refuge habitat, while some barriers have a legitimate invasive-species-control function. Operating Great Lakes examples demonstrate the conflict in practice rather than merely as a hypothetical possibility.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5"],"uncertainty":"No particular barrier, target population, upstream habitat, or limiting demographic mechanism is named. The general problem is supported, but its presence and ecological importance at a candidate site remain unverified."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Concrete adopter and authorizer classes exist: barrier operators such as Royal Botanical Gardens, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its partner agencies, conservation and fisheries departments, fish-health authorities, and permitting bodies. However, the proposal does not identify a specific site operator, competent jurisdiction, or affected rights holder willing to authorize a trial.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7","S8"],"uncertainty":"Authority varies by jurisdiction, infrastructure ownership, protected-species law, water rights, and Indigenous or other rights. Generic actor identification is not equivalent to site-specific authorization."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The core intervention is technically and operationally demonstrated. Cootes Paradise routinely combines invasive-carp exclusion with managed seasonal passage, Great Lakes barriers use trap-and-sort passage around sea-lamprey barriers, and Big Carp River has a seasonally operated trap-and-sort fishway. FishPass supplies an adaptive framework for combining screens, phenology, individual sorting, and monitoring.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"],"uncertainty":"The eight sources do not show the complete proposed protocol—one-season preregistration, tagging, pathogen, hydraulic and injury thresholds, distributional review, and automatic rollback—implemented together. Desired-fish efficiency varies, field performance is site-dependent, and closing a passage cannot undo an invasion or pathogen introduction."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Cootes Paradise Fishway at Princess Point","source_ids":["S5"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Since 1997, a managed fish-strainer barrier has excluded more than 95% of large invasive common carp while allowing native fish and salmonids to move; its operation is explicitly seasonal and involves scheduled fish lifts.","remaining_difference":"It is a mature, continuing restoration operation rather than a one-season preregistered experiment, and the public description does not specify pathogen, injury, hydraulic, rights-incidence, or automatic halt thresholds."},{"name":"Seasonal Great Lakes trap-and-sort fishways, including Big Carp River","source_ids":["S3","S4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"These facilities preserve invasive sea-lamprey exclusion while trapping, identifying, sorting, and moving desirable fish upstream during operating seasons.","remaining_difference":"Sorting is generally manual, target hazards are dominated by sea lamprey, and the retained sources do not document the proposal's complete tagged-fish comparator and threshold package."},{"name":"FishPass selective bi-directional fish-passage program","source_ids":["S3","S6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"FishPass addresses the same connectivity-versus-invasion conflict through site-specific combinations of phenological, morphological, behavioral, hydraulic, screen, and identification technologies under adaptive monitoring.","remaining_difference":"FishPass is a large, multi-year research platform; the candidate is a single-barrier, single-season protocol with explicit rollback and broader pathogen, hydraulic, and distributional safeguards."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"Only a narrow, site-specific incremental claim remains: at a named barrier where baseline evidence shows native passage limitation, adding preregistered individual verification plus explicit pathogen, non-target, injury, hydraulic, monitoring-integrity, and stewardship-burden thresholds to an established seasonal trap-and-sort or screened-passage practice will improve verified target passage and subsequent habitat use relative to full exclusion without crossing any threshold.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The incremental claim is falsified if verified target passage or subsequent habitat use does not improve against the preregistered comparator; if any protected-risk or stewardship threshold is exceeded; if delayed monitoring detects establishment or disease despite compliant operation; or if existing operating protocols are found already to combine the same controls and yield equivalent outcomes.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"The bounded search used eight retained sources from seven publisher or institutional contexts and covered all six lanes. It did not exhaust site records, environmental assessments, engineering specifications, Indigenous governance instruments, patents, commercial systems, or non-indexed regional literature."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Official and research sources document both barrier-caused loss of migratory access and the countervailing use of barriers to exclude invasive organisms.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Relevant institutional classes and real operators are identifiable, but the site-agnostic proposal names no operator, jurisdictional permit authority, or rights holder who could authorize this particular trial.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although selective seasonal passage is established practice, the added site-specific package of preregistered verification, multi-risk thresholds, burden tracking, and outcome comparison is distinct enough to test and falsify.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A safe bounded step is available before releasing fish: select one barrier, document its protective functions, run baseline telemetry and habitat assessment, validate the sorting method without upstream release, characterize pathogen and non-target risks, and preregister thresholds and authority requirements.","source_ids":["S2","S6","S7","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Invasion and pathogen introduction may be irreversible, health screening cannot guarantee pathogen absence, and closure after detection may be too late. Site-specific biosecurity analysis, sorting validation, consents, and rights-holder approval are therefore prerequisites rather than resolved safeguards.","source_ids":["S2","S7","S8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The search covered direct evidence, closest analogues, historical terminology, products and operating practices, official requirements, non-English and regional terminology, and component combinations. Exactly eight sources were retained, with multiple independent publishers and six official or first-party sources.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Do not begin upstream passage yet. Conduct a one-barrier, no-release feasibility phase: identify the operator and competent authorities and rights holders; verify native migration attempts and upstream habitat suitability; quantify the barrier's protective and hydraulic functions; validate individual sorting and pathogen surveillance; and preregister comparator, burden, and halt thresholds. Seek permits for a one-season pilot only if that phase shows that a mistaken passage is sufficiently unlikely and remediable.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web search strongly indicates that the core problem-intervention package is established practice and leaves only a site-specific experimental and governance increment. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, or the absence of additional prior art."}