{"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__B","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["prescribed fire permitting delays missed burn windows authorization research","prescribed fire barriers permitting burn windows peer reviewed study regulatory barriers","prescribed burn permitting administrative delay ecological burning report","Indigenous cultural burning permit application barrier Canada Crown land classical burn plan"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["prescribed burn conditional permit weather forecast authorization burn window preauthorization","prescribed fire permit valid season weather conditions activation daily authorization smoke management","air district prescribed burn permit daily burn authorization meteorological conditions smoke management plan","pre-approval prescribed burn permit weather conditions"],"source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["historical controlled burning permit weather conditions authorization forestry","burning prescription authorization prescribed fire","site:fs.usda.gov prescribed fire plan weather conditions approval pdf","older terminology hazard reduction burning approval weather prescription plan"],"source_ids":["SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["NWCG prescribed fire plan go no-go checklist burn window authorization standard","prescribed fire permit valid season weather conditions activation daily authorization smoke management","air district prescribed burn permit daily burn authorization meteorological conditions smoke management plan"],"source_ids":["SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["quema prescrita autorización ventana meteorológica permiso condiciones locales España","site:gob.es quema prescrita autorización condiciones meteorológicas plan de quema","site:gouv.fr brûlage dirigé autorisation conditions météorologiques plan brûlage","site:gov.br queima prescrita autorização condições meteorológicas manejo integrado fogo"],"source_ids":["SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["prescribed fire barriers permits narrow burn windows staffing smoke regulation study","prescribed burn conditional permit weather forecast authorization burn window preauthorization","Indigenous cultural burning permit application barrier Canada Crown land classical burn plan","prescribed fire go no-go permits clearances smoke weather monitoring contingency plan"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Policy barriers and opportunities for prescribed fire application in the western United States","url":"https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/59412","publisher":"International Journal of Wildland Fire / U.S. Forest Service Research and Development","date_or_year":"2019","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Prescribed fire on western federal lands is used below desired levels.","In 54 interviews, capacity and funding were the most frequently cited barriers; air-quality regulation was not consistently a major barrier except in particular locations.","The causal diagnosis must therefore distinguish authorization design from capacity, funding, risk aversion, and coordination problems."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7","publisher":"Nature Sustainability, Springer Nature","date_or_year":"2020","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Mixed-methods research found a planning-to-implementation gap in California prescribed burning.","Poor burn weather and environmental regulation were among implementation barriers, alongside funding, crew availability, experience, liability concerns, and public perceptions.","The evidence supports a multi-cause distortion audit rather than assuming permitting is the dominant cause."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"The right to burn: barriers and opportunities for Indigenous-led fire stewardship in Canada","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S2371167122000618","publisher":"FACETS / Canadian Science Publishing","date_or_year":"2022","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Government-controlled burn plans, permitting, certification, and jurisdiction can obstruct Indigenous-led cultural burning, particularly on Crown land.","Cultural burning differs from conventional prescribed burning in objectives, techniques, knowledge, and who conducts it.","Any redesign must recognize Indigenous governance and cannot treat agency permission as a substitute for Indigenous rights or shared authority."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Develop Your Prescription","url":"https://ucanr.edu/program/uc-anr-fire-network/develop-your-prescription","publisher":"University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network","date_or_year":"2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Burn plans already encode unit-specific weather prescriptions and defined burn windows.","Practitioners monitor forecasts and on-site conditions against parameter ranges, while California's PFIRS supplies permissive-burn outlooks.","This is operational evidence that locally conditioned burn-window decision support is feasible and already practiced."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17, § 80145 — Program Elements and Requirements","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/17-CCR-80145","publisher":"California Office of Administrative Law, republished by Cornell Legal Information Institute","date_or_year":"2001-current","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["California requires daily authorization for prescribed burning based on meteorology, air quality, burn location, timing, quantity, and smoke-sensitive receptors.","The regulation requires forecasts for specific burns and authorization 24 hours before ignition, subject to change when conditions differ from forecasts.","The rule also requires coordination, reporting, enforcement, prioritization of ecological and public benefits, and protection against cumulative smoke impacts."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Smoke Management Program","url":"https://air.azdeq.gov/smokemanagement","publisher":"Arizona Department of Environmental Quality","date_or_year":"2026","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Arizona operates a current program that approves, disapproves, or conditionally approves prescribed-burn activity each day.","The program evaluates smoke dispersion, coordinates monitoring, publishes approved burns, and analyzes burn data.","This is first-party evidence of routine forecast- and risk-conditioned authorization by an identifiable regulator."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Lei nº 14.944, de 31 de julho de 2024 — Política Nacional de Manejo Integrado do Fogo","url":"https://www.presidencia.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14944.htm","publisher":"Presidency of the Republic of Brazil","date_or_year":"2024","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"Portuguese","claims_supported":["Brazilian law defines prescribed burning as planned, monitored, and controlled fire in specified areas and conditions under integrated fire-management plans.","Protected-area fire management plans must be prepared by the competent managing authority with participation by involved communities and include monitoring and evaluation.","The law recognizes traditional and adaptive fire use, demonstrating that cultural authority and community participation are substantive design constraints."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide","url":"https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/2008_prescribed_fire.pdf","publisher":"National Wildfire Coordinating Group / U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service","date_or_year":"2008","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Federal interagency practice has long used approved burn plans with bounded environmental and fire-behavior prescriptions, expiration dates, and unit-level flexibility.","A burn boss must complete a separate daily go/no-go checklist confirming prescription parameters, smoke requirements, forecasts, staff, equipment, contingency resources, notifications, permits, and clearances before a test fire.","The guide requires complexity analysis, contingency trigger points, smoke-sensitive-receptor protections, and monitoring of weather, fire behavior, smoke dispersion, and objectives."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The broad problem exists: prescribed fire is underimplemented, regulation can contribute to a planning-to-completion gap, and conventional permitting can burden cultural burning. However, the proposed dominant mechanism is not established generally. Western U.S. evidence identifies capacity and funding more often than air-quality regulation, while California evidence shows multiple interacting constraints. Public evidence does not demonstrate that a material number of locally safe windows are specifically lost because of blanket calendar closures or serial approvals in a named jurisdiction.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"uncertainty":"The sources do not provide matched, timestamped permit, weather, staffing, smoke, wildlife-clearance, landowner-consent, and completion records needed to attribute missed windows to authorization design rather than legitimate limits or operational shortages."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Identifiable adopters and authorizers include land-management agency administrators and burn bosses, state or local air-quality regulators, fire authorities, landowners, and affected Indigenous or Tribal governing authorities. California and Arizona identify operating regulators, federal guidance assigns approval to agency administrators and daily decisions to qualified burn bosses, and Brazilian law assigns protected-area planning to competent managers with community participation.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"No particular jurisdiction, management unit, agency administrator, air district, or Indigenous/Tribal government has been named as the proposed pilot sponsor."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The central implementation mechanism is feasible and already implemented in recognizable forms: advance approval of unit-specific burn plans, bounded prescriptions, forecast-based daily or 24-hour authorization, go/no-go checks, test fires, monitoring, contingency triggers, and authority-specific vetoes. California and Arizona operate daily condition-based authorization, and federal interagency guidance has required closely related procedures since at least 2008.","source_ids":["SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The sources do not show that replacing a specific blanket closure or serial workflow with this package produces additional completed burns in the target context, nor do they establish the proposed distributional noninferiority outcomes."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Federal interagency prescribed-fire plan, ignition approval, and daily go/no-go system","source_ids":["SRC8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses preapproved unit plans, bounded weather and fire-behavior prescriptions, approval expiration dates, daily verification of forecasts and safeguards, test fires, monitoring, and contingency triggers to convert acceptable local conditions into permission to ignite.","remaining_difference":"It is an operating safety and implementation framework rather than a causal pilot explicitly comparing authorization-caused missed windows, distributional incidence, and rebound against a serial-approval baseline."},{"name":"California daily prescribed-burn authorization under smoke-management rules","source_ids":["SRC4","SRC5"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Authorizes specific burns using short-horizon forecasts, meteorology, air quality, location, timing, burn quantity, sensitive receptors, and permissive/no-burn decisions; advance plans and local prescriptions are paired with final conditional authorization.","remaining_difference":"The regulation retains seasonal and fire-control restrictions and does not itself test whether replacing a particular calendar closure or approval sequence increases safe ecological treatment."},{"name":"Arizona daily conditional prescribed-burn approval program","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"A regulator routinely approves, rejects, or conditionally approves daily prescribed-burn activity after assessing smoke dispersion and coordinating monitoring.","remaining_difference":"The public program description does not expose a unit-level comparison against blanket closures, wildlife and cultural-review timing, or the proposal's full incidence and rollback evaluation."},{"name":"Brazilian integrated fire-management planning framework","source_ids":["SRC7"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Recognizes planned, monitored fire under area-specific conditions, competent authority, community participation, cultural fire, and monitoring and evaluation.","remaining_difference":"It is a national governance framework, not evidence of forecast-triggered preauthorization replacing serial approvals or calendar closures."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"In a named jurisdiction that still uses a demonstrably coarser closure or serial workflow, replacing that workflow for prespecified low-complexity units with an already-approved unit prescription and condition-triggered activation will reduce authorization-attributable loss of independently safe burn windows and increase safely completed ecological burns, relative to ordinary processing or a capacity-only acceleration, without worsening preregistered smoke, escape, species, cultural-rights, access, or exposure-distribution bounds.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if retrospective records show no material set of independently safe windows lost primarily to the authorization workflow; if the baseline already provides functionally equivalent conditional authorization; if crew, weather, insurance, consent, or valid environmental constraints explain the misses; or if a controlled rollout produces no completion gain or breaches any protected-purpose noninferiority threshold.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"This bounded search used English and non-English terminology and sources from North America, Brazil, Europe, and Australia, but retained evidence is weighted toward U.S. practice. Two relevant publisher pages resisted direct fetching, although their indexed records were reviewed. No jurisdiction-specific administrative dataset, internal queue record, unpublished Tribal law, patent search, or exhaustive global regulatory survey was available. The result cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, routine compliance quality, or realized ecological impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Underimplementation and multi-causal planning-to-completion barriers are externally documented, including place-specific regulatory and Indigenous-governance barriers. The narrower authorization-causation hypothesis remains testable rather than assumed.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Operating rules identify air regulators, land-management administrators, qualified burn bosses, fire authorities, landowners, and Indigenous or Tribal governing authorities as adopters or required authorizers.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although the intervention package is established practice, a context-specific incremental claim remains: whether introducing it where the baseline is genuinely coarser reduces authorization-attributable missed safe windows and improves completed burns without protected-purpose deterioration, compared with ordinary processing and a capacity-only rival.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A retrospective matched-window audit can be completed before ignition, followed only if warranted by a small, one-season, low-complexity, authority-approved rollout with prespecified units, thresholds, outcomes, stop rules, and comparator.","source_ids":["SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposal preserves rather than waives smoke, escape, species, cultural-resource, landowner, and competent-authority gates. Existing frameworks show how qualified officials can retain daily vetoes, monitoring, and contingency authority. Execution must remain contingent on all named authorities, including Indigenous or Tribal authorities where applicable.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially using direct, historical, product/standard, regional non-English, and component-combination terminology. Eight retained direct sources span six independent publishing institutions and include primary research, official rules, official guidance, and first-party operating programs.","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 jurisdiction with an asserted coarse closure or serial workflow and conduct a preregistered retrospective audit of at least one recent burn season. For every planned unit, align permit and review timestamps with independently reconstructed weather, fuel, smoke-dispersion, staffing, equipment, consent, species, cultural-resource, and fire-restriction status. Classify missed windows without using the proposed intervention team's judgment alone. Proceed to a staggered or matched one-season pilot only if the audit identifies a material authorization-attributable subset; compare condition-triggered activation with ordinary approval and a capacity-only acceleration, with independent smoke and equity review and automatic suspension after any protected-purpose breach.","world_novelty_boundary":"The search finds that the core problem–intervention package—advance unit-specific burn planning combined with bounded prescriptions, forecast-conditioned daily authorization, go/no-go checks, monitoring, and safety vetoes—is established practice in multiple public systems and longstanding interagency guidance. The remaining research boundary is a jurisdiction-specific causal and distributional evaluation of replacing a demonstrably coarser workflow, not a claim that risk-conditioned prescribed-burn authorization is new worldwide."}