{"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 burn permits missed weather windows authorization delays calendar restrictions","prescribed fire permitting pre authorization burn window weather forecast conditions","prescribed fire implementation barriers permitting weather windows survey peer reviewed","prescribed fire regulatory barriers California permit delays report"],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["prescribed burning permit burn window approval smoke management forecast authorization","programmatic prescribed fire plan multiple units daily go no go smoke authorization","prescribed fire preauthorization weather envelope smoke approval burn unit pilot permits wildlife cultural resources","USDA prescribed fire planning implementation procedures go no-go checklist burn plan approval"],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S6","S7"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["historical \"controlled burning\" \"daily burn authorization\" permit weather","1970 prescribed burning permit \"burning index\" authorization weather","\"controlled burn\" permit favorable weather conditions forestry manual older","USDA prescribed fire planning implementation procedures go no-go checklist burn plan approval"],"source_ids":["S4","S5"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["prescribed fire permitting pre authorization burn window weather forecast conditions","prescribed burning permit burn window approval smoke management forecast authorization","USDA prescribed fire planning implementation procedures go no-go checklist burn plan approval","programmatic prescribed fire plan multiple units daily go no go smoke authorization"],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["quema prescrita autorización ventana meteorológica permiso condiciones pronóstico España","brûlage dirigé autorisation fenêtre météorologique conditions permis France","queima prescrita autorização condições meteorológicas janela queima Portugal plano fogo controlado","Feu dirigé Québec permis conditions météorologiques autorisation brûlage"],"source_ids":["S7"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["prescribed fire preauthorization weather envelope smoke approval burn unit pilot permits wildlife cultural resources","programmatic prescribed fire plan multiple units daily go no go smoke authorization","prescribed burning permits wildlife seasonal restriction smoke management burn window approvals","cultural burning permits tribal authorization smoke management prescribed fire barriers"],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S6","S8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","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","date_or_year":"2020","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Interview and administrative-data research identifies resource, risk, weather, and environmental-regulation barriers that create a gap between burn planning and implementation.","The evidence supports a real implementation problem but does not isolate authorization design as the dominant cause of missed feasible windows."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Barriers and opportunities for implementing prescribed fire: lessons from managers in the mid-Atlantic region, United States","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-024-00315-6","publisher":"Fire Ecology / Springer Nature","date_or_year":"2024","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Focus-group managers described burn windows as constrained jointly by weather, wildlife and smoke considerations, and legal calendar dates.","Managers specifically identified replacing predetermined calendar dates with flexibility to burn under the best conditions as an opportunity.","The study also identifies interagency coordination, community trust, resources, and complex ownership as material constraints."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Policy barriers and opportunities for prescribed fire application in the western United States","url":"https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/59412","publisher":"U.S. Forest Service Research and Development","date_or_year":"2019","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Fifty-four interviews found capacity and funding were the most commonly cited barriers.","Air-quality regulation was not consistently a major barrier except in particular locations.","Collaborative, multilevel governance and communication between land and air-quality managers are established alternatives to a rules-only diagnosis."]},{"source_id":"S4","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 and U.S. federal land-management agencies","date_or_year":"2008","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Longstanding federal practice requires an approved unit-specific plan, agency-administrator authorization, current weather and smoke forecasts, and a burn-boss tactical decision.","A separate daily go/no-go checklist is required for each ignition day, while approval has an expiration date.","The standard assigns authority, requires interagency approvals where applicable, scales staffing to complexity, preserves contingency and wildfire-conversion authority, and records weather, fire effects, and smoke observations."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Prescribed Burning, Title 17","url":"https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/Title17.pdf","publisher":"California Air Resources Board","date_or_year":"2001","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["California established a daily burn-authorization system for agricultural and prescribed burning.","Authorization incorporates meteorological and smoke-management considerations close to ignition, demonstrating operational condition-based authorization rather than purely fixed calendar permission."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Utah Smoke Management Plan","url":"https://smokemgt.utah.gov/static/pdf/UtahSMP.pdf","publisher":"Utah Division of Air Quality","date_or_year":"2026 revision","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Utah land managers may request a burn window of up to seven consecutive days.","Large-fire approval requests are submitted before ignition and decisions use forecast meteorological conditions.","The plan identifies state and federal land managers as participating adopters and the state smoke coordinator as an authorizing actor."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Planos de Fogo Controlado","url":"https://www.icnf.pt/florestas/gfr/fogotecnico/planosfogocontrolado","publisher":"Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas, Portugal","date_or_year":"accessed 2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"Portuguese","claims_supported":["Portugal defines controlled fire as fire used under specified conditions, standards, and procedures for quantified management objectives under an accredited technician.","A controlled-fire plan can program actions for up to five years, while an operational burn plan is prepared for the individual parcel.","A national database records plans and completed operations and is used to assess practitioner performance."]},{"source_id":"S8","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":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Indigenous Nations seeking to burn on Crown land may face agency-controlled classical burn-plan approval taking weeks to months.","Prepared prescriptions sometimes are not approved or cannot proceed because the agency-assigned period does not match conditions suitable for cultural objectives.","The evidence establishes Indigenous Nations and wildfire-management agencies as affected parties and authorities while showing that conventional authorization can itself impede cultural burning."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The problem exists in at least some jurisdictions: managers report that legal calendar dates interact with weather, wildlife, and smoke constraints, and Indigenous-led projects may wait weeks or months for approval only to receive unsuitable periods. California research also finds a planning-to-implementation gap involving regulation and weather. However, the evidence does not establish that blanket calendars or serial approvals are usually the primary cause of missed independently safe windows; capacity, funding, crews, liability, ownership, trust, and genuinely unsuitable conditions are important competing explanations.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S8"],"uncertainty":"No retained study performs the proposal's matched administrative-record test, quantifies authorization-caused missed windows, or distinguishes delay from valid smoke, species, cultural-resource, staffing, insurance, and landowner constraints at candidate pilot units."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Identifiable adopters and authorizers include land-management agency administrators and burn bosses, state or regional air-quality authorities, state fire-management agencies, landowners, and relevant Tribal or Indigenous governments. Existing federal, Utah, California, Portuguese, and Canadian arrangements identify concrete institutional owners, although an actual pilot jurisdiction remains to be selected.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"],"uncertainty":"Authority is site-specific and sometimes overlapping; identifying actor classes does not establish that any particular agencies or Nation have agreed to a joint pilot."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The core implementation architecture is demonstrably feasible and longstanding: approve a unit-specific or programmatic plan in advance, define prescription bounds, obtain current weather and smoke forecasts, make a near-ignition or daily go/no-go decision, assign accountable officials, monitor outcomes, and retain contingency or cancellation authority. Utah and California also operate forecast-informed burn-window or daily-authorization systems. What remains unproven is whether consolidating otherwise serial authorities in a selected jurisdiction improves completion without weakening protected purposes.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"],"uncertainty":"The retained sources establish procedures, not comparative causal effects of a unified cross-authority authorization pilot, distributional monitoring, or automatic suspension rules."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Federal interagency prescribed-fire plan plus daily go/no-go authorization","source_ids":["S4"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses advance agency approval for a unit-specific plan, bounded prescriptions, current forecasts, an accountable daily ignition decision, complexity-based safeguards, interagency approval, monitoring, and contingency authority.","remaining_difference":"It does not by itself show that statutory calendar closures or separate external air, wildlife, cultural, and land permissions are consolidated into one conditional authorization, nor does it require the proposed comparative equity and noninferiority evaluation."},{"name":"California and Utah forecast-conditioned smoke-management authorization","source_ids":["S5","S6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Advance smoke planning is followed by daily or short-window authorization based on forecast conditions, closely matching conditional preauthorization inside hard smoke constraints.","remaining_difference":"These systems primarily administer smoke and air-quality authority; they do not necessarily replace all fire, wildlife, land, and Tribal approvals or test authorization delay against matched feasible windows."},{"name":"Mid-Atlantic flexible-date prescribed-fire policy opportunity","source_ids":["S2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Managers explicitly connect predetermined legal dates to narrow burn windows and propose burning under the best conditions rather than fixed dates.","remaining_difference":"The study reports a management recommendation, not a controlled implementation with unified preauthorization, incidence measurement, noninferiority bounds, and rollback."},{"name":"Portuguese multi-year controlled-fire planning with parcel-level operational plans","source_ids":["S7"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Separates longer-horizon authorization and programming from parcel-specific operational plans executed by accountable accredited practitioners under defined conditions.","remaining_difference":"The source does not demonstrate that the arrangement was adopted to cure missed feasible windows or that it coordinates the complete set of smoke, species, cultural-rights, and exposure safeguards proposed here."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"In a named jurisdiction first shown by matched records to have authorization-caused missed windows, replacing serial or fixed-date approval with a single, unit-specific cross-authority preauthorization will increase timely, safely completed ecological or cultural burns—not merely authorizations—relative to ordinary approval, while meeting prespecified noninferiority bounds for escape, smoke, species and cultural impacts and avoiding concentrated exposure. This is a deployment and comparative-governance claim, not a new conditional-burn architecture.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if the record audit finds no material set of independently safe windows blocked primarily by authorization design; if conditional authorization does not increase timely safe completion; or if any protected-purpose or distributional noninferiority bound is breached.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"This was a bounded eight-source search. It covered direct evidence, close prior art, older controlled-burning terminology, standards and operating systems, Portuguese/Spanish/French regional terminology, and combinations of planning, smoke, weather, wildlife, cultural authority, and daily authorization. It did not exhaust local ordinances, unpublished permit records, every Tribal legal regime, or patent and commercial databases."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Multiple primary studies support a planning-to-implementation gap, and the Mid-Atlantic and Canadian evidence directly connects legal or agency-assigned periods to lost condition-suitable opportunities. The gate passes despite uncertainty about prevalence and dominant cause.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Existing systems identify agency administrators, burn bosses, air-quality regulators, state fire authorities, landowners, and Tribal or Indigenous governments as the actors who could adopt or authorize a bounded comparison.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although condition-based preauthorization is established practice, a narrower claim remains testable: whether unified cross-authority authorization outperforms the selected jurisdiction's serial or fixed-date baseline on safely completed burns and protected-purpose noninferiority.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A bounded first step is a retrospective audit of a prespecified small set of low-complexity units, classifying candidate days with independently fixed weather, smoke, ecological, consent, staffing, and resource criteria before attributing missed windows. Only if a material authorization-caused subset exists should authorities randomize or phase a one-season conditional-authorization pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Escape, smoke, public health, species, cultural rights, ownership, staffing, and forecast uncertainty are hard constraints but not categorical research stops. Existing standards assign accountable decision-makers, require approvals and forecasts, and preserve no-go, cancellation, contingency, and wildfire-conversion authority. Researchers cannot substitute for any competent authority.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially, and exactly eight retained sources were opened. They span independent research publishers and official bodies, include four primary studies and four official or standards sources, and include older, current, and Portuguese regional evidence.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Select one jurisdiction with accessible permit, plan, weather, smoke, staffing, and cancellation records. Pre-register a retrospective matched-window audit that fixes safety and authority criteria before outcome review and separates authorization delay from weather, crew, insurance, consent, and ecological restrictions. Proceed to a small one-season phased comparison only if the audit finds a material authorization-caused subset; use existing qualified crews, competent agency and Tribal approvals, exposure monitoring, and immediate suspension after any protected-purpose breach.","world_novelty_boundary":"The search shows that the core advance-plan plus forecast-conditioned go/no-go architecture is established practice, but it cannot establish global prevalence or the absence of a jurisdiction-specific governance increment. This bounded review does not establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized ecological or social impact."}