{"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 native fish invasive species barrier seasonal screening","fish passage selective connectivity invasive species FishPass sorting technology","temporary seasonal fish passage barrier native migratory fish invasive control","fishway species selective passage non native fish trap sort"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["\"selective fish passage\" trap and sort historical sea lamprey barrier","selective fish passage framework Rahel McLaughlin 2018","\"Evaluation of passage and sorting of adult Pacific salmonids\" DOI","site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov selective fish passage native invasive fishway"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["\"selective fish passage\" trap and sort historical sea lamprey barrier","fish lock fish lift trap-and-haul trap-and-sort invasive fish barrier","sea lamprey barrier nontarget fish vertical-slot fishway"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["fish ladder standards design manual seasonal operation fish screening criteria official","site:fws.gov fish passage design criteria selective passage invasive species barrier permits","site:noaa.gov fish passage engineering design criteria fish screen injury monitoring","Whooshh Selector selective fish passage invasive species"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["paso selectivo peces nativos especies invasoras barrera migración","passage sélectif poissons espèces invasives barrage migration","passes à poissons continuité écologique réglementation France","selective fishway Iberian barbel common carp"],"source_ids":["SRC6","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["fish passage disease pathogen risk moving fish upstream trap transport biosecurity","selective fish passage native invasive hydraulic injury monitoring","temporary seasonal fishway tagged fish upstream detection rollback","selective fishway screening misclassification invasive species"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":"The retained literature directly covers selective passage, seasonality, sorting, injury, hydraulics, monitoring, invasive-species review, and adaptive management. It did not establish a routinely validated pathogen-detection system integrated into a passage barrier; pathogen thresholds therefore remain site-specific safeguards rather than demonstrated barrier technology."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Reopening Rivers for Migratory Fish","url":"https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/reopening-rivers-migratory-fish","publisher":"NOAA Fisheries","date_or_year":"2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Human-made dams and culverts block migratory fish from spawning and rearing habitat.","Blocked habitat access can impair reproduction and population maintenance or growth.","Hydropower licensing can involve passage conditions and post-licensing migration monitoring."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Balancing aquatic habitat fragmentation and control of invasive species: Enhancing selective fish passage at sea lamprey control barriers","url":"https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70230336","publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey / American Fisheries Society","date_or_year":"2009","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Sea-lamprey barriers protect against an invasive migrant while obstructing non-target fish.","Specially designed vertical-slot trap-and-sort fishways were already installed at such barriers.","Two operational fishways were evaluated with tagged fish across multiple years.","At Big Carp River, modifications improved passage from 35 percent to 88 percent and 64 percent in later years, while results at Cobourg Brook remained poor.","Selective passage can cause repeated attempts and migration delays, making site-specific monitoring necessary."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Single-Stream Recycling Inspires Selective Fish Passage Solutions for the Connectivity Conundrum in Aquatic Ecosystems","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7567676/","publisher":"BioScience / Oxford University Press","date_or_year":"2020","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["A seasonally operated trap-and-sort fishway existed at Big Carp River behind a sea-lamprey barrier.","Fixed-crest barriers are widely used to control invasive fish but can also impede species with overlapping locomotor traits.","Electrical guidance and other single-factor methods are not completely species-specific.","Multispecies selective passage remains site- and assemblage-dependent, motivating combinations of sorting technologies."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Selector™: Innovative Fish Ladder Solutions","url":"https://www.whooshh.com/product/selector/","publisher":"Whooshh Innovations","date_or_year":"2026 (accessed)","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A commercial first-party product is marketed to convert all-or-nothing passage into automated selective passage.","The product combines image recognition, automated sorting, volitional entry, and digital monitoring records.","The vendor claims integration with existing fishways, bypasses, and weirs; these performance claims are not independent field validation."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Evaluation of Passage and Sorting of Adult Pacific Salmonids through a Novel Fish Passage Technology","url":"https://www.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-passage-and-sorting-adult-pacific-salmonids-through-novel-fish-passage","publisher":"Pacific Northwest National Laboratory","date_or_year":"2019","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Researchers evaluated a combined scanning, sorting, and pneumatic fish-transport system.","The system provided autonomous, volitional, selective upstream passage for tested adult salmonids of different sizes and species.","Testing found successful size sorting, few external injuries, and few unexpected transport events.","The study did not demonstrate exclusion of invasive species or pathogen control in a mixed wild assemblage."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Keeping Out Invaders: Design and Assessment of a Selective Vertical Slot Fishway to Inhibit the Passage of the Common Carp, a Non-Native Invasive Cyprinid","url":"https://www.iahr.org/library/info?pid=38032","publisher":"International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research","date_or_year":"2025","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["A full-scale experiment tested hydraulic configurations intended to favor native Iberian barbel while deterring invasive common carp.","One tested configuration produced 17 successful barbel ascents and no carp ascents among the fish attempting passage.","Hydraulic selectivity is a plausible alternative or complement to organism-by-organism screening.","The work reports promising experimental results, not broad field validation across seasons and assemblages."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"National Fish Passage Program Policy, 710 FW 1","url":"https://www.fws.gov/policy-library/710fw1","publisher":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service","date_or_year":"2024","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Fish-passage projects require compliance with applicable federal, state, local, and Tribal requirements and evaluation of invasive-species issues.","Projects involving multiple jurisdictions require coordination among government, conservation, and private partners.","Where full barrier removal is infeasible, policy calls for a management plan with responsible parties, adaptive actions, and clear intervention criteria.","Emerging technologies may be tested with monitoring, adaptive management, documentation, and communication of results."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Cours d’eau : continuité écologique, biodiversité et migrateurs amphihalins","url":"https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/cours-deau-continuite-ecologique-biodiversite-migrateurs-amphihalins","publisher":"French Ministry for Ecological Transition","date_or_year":"2017–2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"French","claims_supported":["French guidance states that transverse structures can reduce, delay, or eliminate fish migration and impair completion of life cycles.","Barrier interventions are selected case by case after ecological, technical, socioeconomic, safety, use, and heritage considerations.","Fishways provide only partial connectivity, require continuing surveillance and maintenance, and can cause delay or injury.","Water-control works and modifications can require authorization or declaration, with local owners and public authorities occupying identifiable decision roles."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The general problem clearly exists: barriers used for hydraulic or invasive-species purposes can block native migration, spawning access, and connectivity. Operational sea-lamprey barriers with non-target passage problems provide a direct instance, and French and U.S. official guidance independently recognizes barrier-related migration and life-cycle harms.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The sources do not establish that every candidate barrier limits population performance or that upstream habitat is suitable. Telemetry, habitat assessment, and demographic diagnosis remain necessary at a named site."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Adopter and authorizer classes are identifiable: barrier owners or operators, fisheries and invasive-species managers, permitting agencies, and potentially Tribal or other rights-holding governments. Official U.S. and French guidance confirms these roles and approval processes, but the proposal names no barrier, jurisdiction, operator, regulator, or rights holder.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"A concrete adopter cannot be confirmed until a site and jurisdiction are selected and the relevant operator, agencies, and rights holders agree to participate."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Core implementation elements have precedent. Seasonally operated trap-and-sort passage at a sea-lamprey barrier closely matches the proposed seasonal selective relaxation, and multi-year tagged-fish evaluations show measurable passage outcomes. Automated image-based sorting is commercially offered, scanning-and-transport technology has been experimentally tested, and hydraulic selectivity has full-scale experimental support.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6"],"uncertainty":"No retained source validates the entire package—target verification, seasonal field operation, pathogen thresholds, hydraulic safeguards, ecological response, and rollback—at one mixed-assemblage site. Automated product performance and rare-event invasive exclusion require independent field validation."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Seasonally operated trap-and-sort fishways at Great Lakes sea-lamprey barriers","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"These installations preserve an invasive-sea-lamprey barrier while selectively moving desirable non-target fish; Big Carp River is explicitly described as seasonally operated, and tagged-fish performance was monitored over multiple years.","remaining_difference":"The proposal adds a formal one-season preregistration, explicit pathogen, injury, hydraulic and monitoring-integrity halt thresholds, automatic sunset, and distributional or rights review. Those are governance and evaluation refinements rather than a new problem–intervention mechanism."},{"name":"Whooshh Selector and WESS-WFTS sorting-and-transport systems","source_ids":["SRC4","SRC5"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Both implement verified selective passage through sensing or sorting and controlled transport, with monitoring records and attention to fish injury.","remaining_difference":"The independent study primarily demonstrated salmonid size or species sorting and transport, not invasive exclusion in a wild mixed assemblage; the vendor's broader invasive-exclusion claims require independent validation."},{"name":"Hydraulically selective vertical-slot fishway for Iberian barbel versus common carp","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"It pursues native connectivity while deterring an invasive fish and demonstrates experimentally measurable selectivity.","remaining_difference":"Selection is produced by species-differential hydraulic performance rather than verified organism screening, and the evidence is experimental rather than a one-season field pilot with operational rollback."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"The credible incremental claim is site-specific rather than a generic invention claim: at a newly named barrier where diagnostic evidence shows native limitation, a preregistered temporary selective-passage configuration will increase verified native passage and subsequent upstream habitat use relative to current operation while keeping non-native passage, disease signals, injury, unsafe hydraulics, monitoring failures, and operator burden within prospectively specified limits. Formal sunset and rights-holder review could also be evaluated as an implementation refinement.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"Falsify the incremental claim if target fish do not attempt passage, upstream habitat is unsuitable, verified passage or subsequent habitat use does not improve against the preregistered comparator, any protected-risk threshold is exceeded, sorting errors cannot be bounded, or monitoring and operator capacity are insufficient to execute the rollback rule.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"The search was bounded to eight opened public sources and six adversarial lanes. It was not a systematic review and cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, technology availability in every jurisdiction, or realized ecological impact. Paywalls, indexing gaps, unpublished operating records, Indigenous knowledge not publicly indexed, and terminology differences may conceal additional prior art."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Official guidance and direct field research establish that human-made barriers can impair native migration and that invasive-control barriers create a documented connectivity conflict.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Relevant roles are identifiable, but no specific barrier operator, permitting body, fisheries authority, or rights holder is named or shown willing to authorize the pilot.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC7","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although the generic package is established practice, a named-site transfer claim remains falsifiable through comparative native-passage, habitat-use, sorting-error, injury, invasion, disease, hydraulic, and workload outcomes. Its distinctness is limited to contextual performance and governance refinements.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC5","SRC6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A one-barrier, one-migration-season study with tagged fish, before-period comparison, predetermined thresholds, continuous monitoring, and automatic closure is bounded. Site diagnosis and permits must precede deployment.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No categorical stop is evident because the design preserves the barrier, excludes unscreened and permanent changes, and includes immediate rollback. Execution remains conditional on site-specific invasive and disease assessment, hydraulic review, permits, operator consent, and rights-holder authorization.","source_ids":["SRC7","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially using direct, historical, product or standards, regional non-English, and component-combination terminology. Eight opened sources from independent publishers include official guidance, primary field or experimental research, and first-party product evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Select one candidate barrier and complete a pre-pilot diagnostic: identify the operator, regulators and rights holders; document the barrier's protective function; use telemetry to confirm native passage attempts; assess upstream habitat and population limitation; inventory non-target species and pathogens; and preregister site-specific benefit, sorting-error, injury, hydraulic, disease, monitoring-integrity and workload thresholds. Proceed to one seasonal pilot only after written authorization and a tested immediate-closure procedure.","world_novelty_boundary":"This review supports a high-confidence conclusion that the broad problem–intervention package is established practice, particularly through seasonally operated trap-and-sort passage at invasive-sea-lamprey barriers. It does not establish that every safeguard or governance element has previously been combined, nor does it determine world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, commercial viability, market size, or realized impact. Any remaining claim should be limited to a specified site's comparative ecological and operational performance."}