{"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":["geological collections destructive sampling policy microsampling repository data return","earth science repository destructive analysis requests denied collection policy geological samples","\"destructive sampling\" geological collections access barriers denied research","palaeontology collections destructive sampling policy survey denial requests"],"source_ids":["S1","S2"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["geological repository destructive sampling \"minimum sample remainder\" \"data\" return","geology collection sample allocation specimen rarity sample volume scientific merit data return policy","museum destructive sampling pilot study subset duplicate specimens returned data policy geology"],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["\"secondary sampling\" geologic repository policy archive core","\"secondary sampling\" geological samples minimum sample remainder repository","invertebrate paleontology collections destructive sampling 2011"],"source_ids":["S2","S3"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["SPNHC guidelines destructive sampling natural history collections policy sample request","museum standards destructive sampling collections best practice risk assessment data return","IODP sample request policy destructive sampling archive half core data return","geological core repository sample request destructive analysis allocation policy"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["地質標本 破壊分析 試料 貸出 規定 博物館","地質 コア 試料 分析 申請 保存 日本 リポジトリ","site:jamstec.go.jp/kochi/jc_curation/j/j_requestsample.html コア試料 利用申請 分析データ 提出 審査","échantillonnage destructif collections géologiques musée règlement"],"source_ids":["S7"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["geological sample repository access equity destructive sampling request review","museum destructive sampling pilot study subset duplicate specimens returned data policy geology","geological repository destructive sampling \"minimum sample remainder\" \"data\" return","geology collection sample allocation specimen rarity sample volume scientific merit data return policy"],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Destructive sampling natural science collections: an overview for museum professionals and researchers","url":"https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10048229/","publisher":"Natural Sciences Collections Association; hosted by UCL Discovery","date_or_year":"2018","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Destructive sampling can make museum staff reluctant to permit some scientific research.","Analytical improvements have reduced required sample sizes substantially.","The authors recommend explicit request forms and policies that balance scientific benefit against irreversible loss."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Working Toward Standardization: A Survey of Curation Procedures in Invertebrate Paleontology Collections","url":"https://spnhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/cofo-25.pdf","publisher":"Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, Collection Forum","date_or_year":"2011","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["A survey of 23 invertebrate-paleontology collections found that 19 allowed destructive sampling, three did not, and one did not answer.","Among permissive collections, specimen rarity, uniqueness, type status, prior permission, and case-by-case review commonly differentiated access.","Sixteen of the 19 permissive collections required products, data, and publications to be returned.","Some fossil taxa require cutting, polishing, or thin-sectioning for identification, so non-destructive inspection is not always an analytical substitute."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"The U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Collections Management System—A Master Catalog and Collections Management Plan for U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Samples and Sample Collections","url":"https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1410/pdf/circ1410.pdf","publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","date_or_year":"2015","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["The guidance calls archived-sample reuse re-sampling or secondary sampling.","It recommends repository-level review based on sample availability and request merit.","It recommends giving out no more than half of a sample at one time, establishing a minimum remainder, documenting loans, and returning resultant data."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Cuttings Sampling Policy","url":"https://www.usgs.gov/core-research-center/cuttings-sampling-policy","publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey Core Research Center","date_or_year":"Current policy, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Sampling eligibility is explicitly volume-tiered: an envelope must contain more than 15 ml and no more than 5 ml may be taken.","The policy uses duplicate availability, per-visit and outstanding-request caps, staff verification, and categorical exclusion of scarce-grain sampling.","Unused material and analytical results must be returned within six months; further access can be withheld for overdue results.","The policy distinguishes non-destructive analysis from destructive withdrawal while applying repository approval to both."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"NSF-ICF Use and Ice Core Sample Allocation Policy","url":"https://icecores.org/policy","publisher":"U.S. National Science Foundation Ice Core Facility","date_or_year":"Revised May 2024","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Sample allocation is reviewed by a Science Management Office and Sample Allocation Committee with final NSF approval.","The policy provides limited samples for reviewed pilot studies and separately identifies deaccession ice for method development and other uses.","Recipients must archive data, report progress for subsequent requests, obtain approval for changed analyses, and may return unused core portions.","The facility and committees are identifiable adopters and authorizers."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Geology Policies","url":"https://www.fieldmuseum.org/page/geology-policies","publisher":"Field Museum","date_or_year":"Current policy, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Destructive-analysis proposals must specify procedures, expected sample sizes, and material consumed.","The museum may require a pilot study on a small specimen subset and prefers specimens with comparable duplicates.","Detailed documentation, return of unused material, and approval by the relevant Collections Action Team are required.","The policy separately recognizes title, permits, donor restrictions, repatriation, specimen condition, and security constraints."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"コア試料の利用申請と利用の手順 (Core Sample Request and Procedures of Use)","url":"https://www.jamstec.go.jp/kochi/jc_curation/j/j_requestsample.html","publisher":"Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research","date_or_year":"Current page, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"Japanese","claims_supported":["JAMSTEC evaluates each request's purpose, method, and requested quantity before providing core samples.","Applicants must detail intended use and volume; the curator may adjust requests and address export-control or specimen-specific conditions.","Use periods, return approval, and submission of publishable analytical results are part of the process.","The curator and Core Sample Management Office are identifiable authorizers."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Access Data and Samples","url":"https://www.iodp.org/resources/access-data-and-samples","publisher":"International Ocean Discovery Program","date_or_year":"Current page, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Physical drilling samples are held in three repositories and requested through a dedicated Sample and Data Requests database.","Recipients are bound by a sample, data, and obligations policy.","A Curatorial Advisory Board makes final sample-distribution decisions.","The system combines current research access with maintenance of legacy archives."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The general problem exists: the paleontology survey found three of 23 collections prohibited destructive sampling, while the review literature reports curatorial reluctance even as analytical sample requirements have fallen. It also establishes that some geological and paleontological questions require cutting or thin-sectioning. However, no retained source provides a current repository-level denial audit showing that scientifically worthwhile microsampling requests are routinely rejected solely because of a coarse rule.","source_ids":["S1","S2"],"uncertainty":"The strongest direct quantitative evidence is a 2011 North American invertebrate-paleontology survey. Its three blanket prohibitions were not linked to request volume, merit, or forgone findings, and current prevalence is unknown."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Repositories have identifiable decision makers: USGS CRC staff, the NSF Ice Core Science Management Office/Sample Allocation Committee and NSF, Field Museum Collections Action Teams, JAMSTEC's curator and Core Sample Management Office, and IODP's Curatorial Advisory Board.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"],"uncertainty":"Which body can change a particular repository's rule depends on ownership, donor terms, permits, export controls, and institutional governance."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The principal intervention package is already implemented across multiple earth-science repositories: case-by-case or class-specific review, minimum reserves, volume thresholds, request caps, pilot allocations, duplicate checks, returned remnants, data-return duties, and named approval bodies all appear in current policies or official guidance.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"],"uncertainty":"The sources describe policies, not comparative outcome evaluations. They do not establish effects on denial rates, knowledge produced per unit consumed, administrative burden, or access equity."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"USGS Core Research Center cuttings allocation policy","source_ids":["S4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses an abundance threshold, a per-envelope consumption cap, duplicate checks, aggregate request caps, staff approval, categorical exclusions, six-month material/data return, and access sanctions.","remaining_difference":"It is an operating rule rather than a time-limited comparative evaluation and does not report equity or knowledge-per-unit-consumed outcomes."},{"name":"USGS GCMS secondary-sampling guidance","source_ids":["S3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Calls for repository-specific suitability review based on availability and merit, a maximum fraction released, a minimum retained reserve, signed agreements, and returned results.","remaining_difference":"It supplies general guidance rather than a preclassified low-risk rubric with cumulative pilot monitoring and a preset rollback trigger."},{"name":"Field Museum geology destructive-testing protocol","source_ids":["S6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Requires proposal-specific quantities and methods, authority review, a small-subset pilot, duplicate availability, documentation, and return of materials and data.","remaining_difference":"It does not publicly specify standardized risk tiers, a cumulative consumption ceiling, an access-equity audit, or causal comparison against the former rule."},{"name":"NSF Ice Core sample-allocation system","source_ids":["S5"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses committee review, limited pilot-study allocations, a lower-risk deaccession class, renewed review for additional samples, data archiving, and return procedures.","remaining_difference":"The public policy does not state specimen-level microsampling thresholds or a formal cap-triggered rollback experiment."},{"name":"JAMSTEC and IODP core-request systems","source_ids":["S7","S8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Use request-specific evaluation of purpose, method, quantity, restrictions, data obligations, and named curatorial authorities across regional and international repositories.","remaining_difference":"The public pages do not report denial audits, equity monitoring, comparative pilot outcomes, or an explicit reserved-volume algorithm."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"A credible incremental claim is local and evaluative, not the policy concept itself: in a repository first shown to use a genuinely coarse rule, a preregistered low-risk-class rubric with cumulative caps and an access-equity ledger will increase valid completed analyses and reusable returned data per unit consumed, relative to the prior rule, without exceeding preset integrity, compliance, workload, or distributional tolerances.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if a blinded log audit finds denials already track specimen-specific abundance, legality, custody, method, and merit with essentially no feasible low-consumption requests blocked; or if the subsequent capped pilot fails to improve completed valid analyses or reusable data per unit consumed, breaches reserves or authority conditions, raises workload beyond tolerance, or worsens access equity.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"This was a bounded public-web search using exactly eight retained direct sources. Internal request and denial logs, unpublished repository rules, applicant experiences, and outcome data were unavailable. The quantitative survey is old and discipline-specific. The search cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Independent research documents blanket prohibition in a minority of surveyed paleontology collections, curatorial reluctance, shrinking analytical sample requirements, and geological analyses that cannot always be non-destructive. The exact current magnitude remains unmeasured but is testable through repository records.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Multiple policies identify repository curators, collection teams, allocation committees, and governing agencies with authority over sample release.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although risk-adjusted sampling permission is established practice, a distinct claim remains about the causal performance and equity of a standardized rubric in a repository verified to have a coarse baseline.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A bounded sequence is feasible: first audit 12–24 months of request records, then—only if coarse low-risk denials are confirmed—run a preregistered six-month, at-most-20-request pilot. Existing Field Museum and NSF policies demonstrate that small-subset and limited-sample pilots are administratively recognizable mechanisms.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No inherent stop applies if unique, depleted, legally or custodially restricted, hazardous, contaminated, or unauthorized material remains categorically excluded and the competent owner or governance body approves. Existing policies already gate title, permits, donor restrictions, repatriation, export control, specimen-specific conditions, and unauthorized changes.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially, including older terms such as re-sampling and secondary sampling, current products and policies, Japanese terminology and practice, and combinations of volume caps, reserves, pilots, duplicates, governance, and data return. The eight retained sources span six independent publishers and include one primary survey plus six official, guidance, 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":"At one candidate repository, conduct a blinded retrospective audit of 12–24 months of destructive-analysis requests, coding requested volume, specimen abundance and uniqueness, legal or custodial restrictions, scientific merit, decision, stated denial reason, applicant characteristics, and later outputs. Predefine the minimum number of high-merit, low-consumption denials attributable solely to a coarse rule that would justify a six-month pilot of no more than 20 requests; otherwise stop. If justified, preregister reserve, cumulative-consumption, workload, data-return, integrity, compliance, and access-equity thresholds with automatic suspension.","world_novelty_boundary":"The retained sources show that the central problem–intervention package is established repository practice in several geological contexts. They leave a potentially useful local comparative-effectiveness claim, but this bounded search does not establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized scientific impact."}