{"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__earth_sciences","opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["destructive sampling policy geological collections microsampling repository research requests","\"destructive sampling\" collections denied research curators geological","\"destructive analysis\" museum collections access barrier research specimens"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["geological museum collection destructive sampling application policy remaining specimen data return","core repository destructive sampling allocation sample request policy geology","\"technical analysis\" \"destructive sampling\" museum policy case-by-case"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["\"destructive sampling\" natural history collections 1994 policy","\"consumptive analysis\" museum specimen policy geological","\"sacrificial sampling\" geological museum collection","\"destructive sampling\" geological collection policy history"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC5"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["natural history collections destructive sampling guidelines geological specimens","USGS core research center sampling policy minimum amount data return core sampling","SPNHC best practices destructive sampling collections risk assessment data return","IODP core sample request policy moratorium residual archive half working half destructive analysis data return"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["prélèvement destructif collections géologiques politique musée échantillon analyse","zerstörende Probenahme geologische Sammlung Richtlinie Museum Analyse Probe","muestreo destructivo colecciones geológicas política museo análisis muestras","campionamento distruttivo collezioni geologiche museo regolamento"],"source_ids":["SRC6","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["geological museum collection destructive sampling application policy remaining specimen data return","NASA curation sample allocation policy minimum reserve destructive analysis geological samples","destructive testing paleontology repository committee sampling flexible scientific knowledge","IODP core sample request policy moratorium residual archive half working half destructive analysis data return"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Destructive sampling natural science collections: an overview for museum professionals and researchers","url":"https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10048229/1/FreedmanVanDorpBrace2018-e.pdf","publisher":"Journal of Natural Science Collections / Natural Sciences Collections Association","date_or_year":"2018","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Curatorial reluctance and misunderstanding of analytical requirements can cause missed research opportunities.","Some information, including isotopic and mineral-chemistry evidence, requires invasive sampling.","Technical improvements have reduced required quantities and enabled microsampling.","The authors recommend merit-based request review, explicit risk-benefit questions, minimally invasive sampling, return of unused material, and linked documentation."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Core Sampling Policy","url":"https://www.usgs.gov/core-research-center/core-sampling-policy","publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey Core Research Center","date_or_year":"Undated; current policy accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["An operating geological repository already uses quantitative eligibility and reserve rules, including a one-cubic-inch limit, one sample per foot, and preservation of a continuous core portion.","Larger requests receive case-by-case review, while some high-consumption mineral-separation sampling is categorically prohibited.","Unused material and analytical results must be returned within six months; overdue users lose further access.","CRC staff approve sampling and determine material sufficiency."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy","url":"https://www.iodp.org/docs/iodp-legacy/iodp-2003-2013-program-policies-and-guidelines/794-iodp-2003-2013-sample-data-and-obligations-policy-2009/file","publisher":"Integrated Ocean Drilling Program","date_or_year":"2009","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Ocean-drilling repositories distinguish unique from non-unique intervals and working, temporary-archive, and permanent-archive material.","At least half of relevant core is reserved as a permanent archive, with later access possible when working material is depleted.","Curators and a Curatorial Advisory Board supervise allocation and can negotiate interval or spacing changes before considering permanent-archive sampling.","Researchers have publication and data obligations, and policy includes guidance on sample volumes."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Collection Policy","url":"https://paleorepository.sites.uiowa.edu/collection-policy","publisher":"University of Iowa Paleontology Repository","date_or_year":"Undated; current policy accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A geological repository expressly uses a flexible knowledge-versus-specimen-sacrifice standard rather than blanket refusal.","Type and display specimens receive added protection, while destructive requests are justified individually.","The curator and, when necessary, Repository Committee authorize requests.","Sampling methods and resulting data become part of permanent specimen documentation."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Standards in the Museum Care of Geological Collections 2004","url":"https://collectionstrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MLA-Standards-in-the-Museum-Care-of-Geological-Collections-2004.pdf","publisher":"Museums, Libraries and Archives Council","date_or_year":"2004","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Professional geological-collection standards require every destructive sampling event to be recorded in specimen documentation.","The standards require specimen history files, records of research results and links to derived materials such as thin sections and microfossils.","The document describes itself as consensus professional best practice and notes an earlier 1993 edition and 1985 geological-curation guidance."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Collections Development Policy","url":"https://samlinger.snm.ku.dk/samlingsforvaltning/politikker/Collections_Development_Policy.pdf","publisher":"Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen","date_or_year":"2023","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["The policy expressly covers crushing rocks for isotope, chemical or microfossil analysis and removal or total destruction of specimens.","Evaluation considers abundance, alternative material, non-destructive methods, scientific benefit, prior pilot evidence, repeat use, displaced future methods and type or historical status.","Rare or unique material requires exceptional justification and higher approval; refusals receive reasons and may be appealed.","Curators, collections managers and the Deputy Director are identified authorizers, with material-transfer, legal and access-and-benefit-sharing restrictions preserved."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Destructive Analysis Policy and Procedures","url":"https://lsa.umich.edu/ummaa/collections/access-to-collections/destructive-analysis-policy-and-procedures.html","publisher":"University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology","date_or_year":"2016 policy; current page accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["An adjacent repository already uses case-by-case review based on sample amount, scientific merit, least-intrusive method, future usability, returnability and likelihood of receiving results.","The curator and Executive Committee can require a limited pilot before approving access to additional material.","Federal ownership and NAGPRA-related consent can create additional mandatory authorization layers.","Unused portions, sampling documentation, raw analytical outcomes and publications must be returned."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Protocolo para la autorización de toma de muestras arqueológicas y bioantropológicas","url":"https://www.mnhn.gob.cl/sites/www.mnhn.gob.cl/files/2022-09/Protocolo%20autorizaci%C3%B3n%20toma%20de%20muestras%20en%20Col%20Antropol%C3%B3gicas.pdf","publisher":"Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Chile","date_or_year":"Undated; posted by 2022","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"Spanish","claims_supported":["A regional non-English protocol uses case-by-case methodological demonstrations and permits acceptance, partial acceptance or denial.","Requested quantity must reflect current scientific-methodological advances, and unique or highly significant objects are normally excluded subject to narrow exceptions.","The curator, conservator, area head and museum director have defined approval roles; overseas analysis can require a ministry decree.","Measurements, mass, photographs, remnants, procedures, results and publications are subject to return or reporting duties."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The underlying tension is real: destructive analysis can be necessary to recover otherwise inaccessible evidence, curatorial reluctance or misunderstanding can produce missed opportunities, and modern techniques can materially reduce sample quantities. Some geological policies also retain categorical exclusions. However, the retained sources do not provide denial-log evidence showing that geological repositories routinely reject feasible, high-value microsampling specifically because of collection-wide coarse rules.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC6"],"uncertainty":"Published policies establish mechanisms and plausible missed opportunities, not the frequency, merit or causal basis of actual denials. No repository-level blinded denial audit or comparative outcome dataset was found."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Concrete authorizers are identifiable: USGS CRC staff and its director, IODP repository curators and Curatorial Advisory Board, the Iowa curator and Repository Committee, and NHMD curators, collections managers, Deputy Director and Board. Owners, federal agencies, ministries and affected communities may retain superior authority for restricted material.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"Which body can authorize a pilot depends on title, donor or permit terms, cultural affiliation, export law and the repository's governing instruments."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Substantially the proposed package is already implemented in multiple repositories: specimen- or interval-specific review, abundance and uniqueness tiers, quantitative consumption limits, reserved archive material, higher gates for rare material, data and remnant return, request documentation, named authorizers and limited pilots.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The sources document policies rather than comparative performance. They do not show whether these systems increase valid evidence per unit consumed, improve access equity or control demand rebound."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"USGS Core Research Center sampling system","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses reserve thresholds, quantitative per-sample and cumulative limits, staff authorization, case-by-case exceptions, unused-material return and mandatory public data return for archived geological cores.","remaining_difference":"The policy does not present a six-month experimental rollout, applicant-equity audit, formal expected-evidence score or preset rollback analysis."},{"name":"IODP tiered core-archive allocation","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Classifies intervals by uniqueness and material by working, temporary-archive and permanent-archive status; preserves minimum reserves and permits escalation when ordinary material is depleted.","remaining_difference":"It is a mature allocation regime rather than a test of whether replacing a blanket rule changes approvals, evidence yield or distributional incidence."},{"name":"Natural History Museum of Denmark destructive and invasive sampling policy","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"For rock preparation and consumption, evaluates abundance, alternatives, scientific yield, pilot evidence, future displacement and rarity, with elevated authorization and legal safeguards.","remaining_difference":"No explicit cumulative collection-class cap, six-month sunset, equity metric or causal comparison with prior decisions is reported."},{"name":"University of Iowa Paleontology Repository flexible destructive-sampling policy","source_ids":["SRC4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Replaces categorical refusal with a flexible knowledge-versus-sacrifice decision, protects type material, assigns authority and requires data return.","remaining_difference":"Its public policy does not specify calibrated risk tiers, request-volume monitoring, quantitative reserve triggers or rollback thresholds."},{"name":"Natural-science destructive-sampling best-practice framework","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Professional guidance recognizes missed research opportunities, falling sample requirements and the need for merit-specific risk-benefit review, minimal removal, remnant return and complete documentation.","remaining_difference":"The guidance does not supply empirical geological denial rates or evaluate a capped tiered-permission pilot."},{"name":"University of Michigan staged destructive-analysis approval","source_ids":["SRC7"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses specimen-specific risk and merit criteria, named authorizers, returned data and remnants, and pilots on a subset before additional access.","remaining_difference":"It concerns archaeological collections and does not test a preclassified low-risk geological collection class or equity and rebound outcomes."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"A credible incremental claim remains only at the implementation-evaluation level: in a named repository that currently uses genuinely coarse rules, adding a preclassified low-risk geological class, explicit cumulative caps, blinded access-equity review and preset suspension criteria will increase completed valid analyses and reusable returned data per unit consumed compared with that repository's existing process, without exceeding integrity or compliance tolerances.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if a blinded baseline audit finds decisions already specimen-specific, or if a preregistered comparison shows no improvement in completed valid analyses or reusable data per unit consumed, or shows excess depletion, contamination, unequal access, administrative burden or compliance failures.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"The eight-source bounded search covered six lanes and English, Spanish and regional terminology, but retained evidence is policy-heavy. It did not obtain internal request logs, denial reasons, administrative-cost data, equity data or pilot outcomes. Adjacent biological and archaeological policies inform mechanism and authority but are not substitutes for geological evidence."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"External literature supports missed opportunities from curatorial reluctance or misunderstanding and shows that modern microsampling can reduce required material, while geological policies demonstrate the operative access-preservation tension. The exact prevalence of coarse-rule geological denials remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC6"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Multiple repository-level adopters and authorizers are named, with superior owner, agency, ministry or community authority identifiable for restricted specimens.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although risk-sensitive permission is established practice, the narrower comparison of a preclassified low-risk class plus cumulative caps, blinded equity review and preset rollback against a demonstrably coarse local baseline remains falsifiable.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A repository can first conduct a blinded retrospective audit of a fixed set of recent low-volume requests and, only if coarse denials are found, authorize a capped pilot. Staged destructive-analysis pilots are already an operationally recognized mechanism.","source_ids":["SRC6","SRC7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No categorical stop applies to a records-only audit or to an authorized pilot that excludes unique, depleted, hazardous, legally restricted or culturally controlled material. Existing policies show how higher approval, owner consent, export controls, custody and documentation must remain binding.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered all six required lanes and retained exactly eight opened direct sources from eight institutional or professional publishers, including official policies, an official geological standard and first-party repository practices.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"At one repository, preregister a blinded audit of up to 20 recent low-volume destructive-analysis requests, coding abundance, uniqueness, requested mass, legal or custodial restrictions, scientific merit, decision and reason. Proceed to the proposed capped pilot only if the audit finds feasible high-value requests rejected because of coarse rules; compare valid completed analyses and reusable returned data per unit consumed against the audited baseline.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-source search establishes neither world novelty nor absence of additional prior art. It cannot determine patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact or the proposal's performance at a particular repository. The defensible boundary is that risk-sensitive destructive-sampling permission is already established practice, while the locally comparative, equity-audited and rollback-governed evaluation remains a potentially researchable increment."}