{"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":["researchers denied destructive sampling museum collections barriers study geological paleontology","destructive sampling requests denied collections research access study museum policy","natural history collections destructive sampling access barriers scientific research paper","paleontology museum destructive sampling policy survey denied requests"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5"],"no_result_note":"The retained sources establish curatorial reluctance, selective nonapproval, and capacity-limited processing, but no repository-level dataset directly demonstrates that low-depletion geological requests are routinely denied specifically because of blanket rules."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["geological repository destructive sampling policy microsampling application returned data reserve material","museum destructive sampling policy geological specimens thin section powder aliquot","core repository destructive sampling request policy sample depletion scientific merit","\"destructive sampling\" geology collections policy"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["\"consumptive sampling\" geological collections policy","\"technical analysis\" \"geological collections\" specimen policy","1990 2000 museum \"destructive analysis\" fossil specimens policy","lunar sample allocation guidelines destructive analysis reserve sample"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["SPNHC best practice destructive sampling collections standard risk categories specimens","ICOM code ethics destructive sampling museum collections research specimens","Natural Sciences Collections Association destructive sampling guidelines geological collections","museum collections standard destructive sampling policy risk assessment data return"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["site:de \"zerstörende Probenahme\" geologische Sammlung Richtlinie Museum","site:fr prélèvement destructif collections géologiques règlement musée","site:es \"muestreo destructivo\" colecciones geológicas museo política","site:br \"amostragem destrutiva\" coleção geológica museu"],"source_ids":["SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":"Regional searches located official Portuguese and Chinese geological or planetary-sample regimes. The German, French, and Spanish queries did not yield a stronger directly relevant retained source than the eight selected sources."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["geological sample repository specimen-specific review consumption cap reserved material mandatory data return","destructive geological sampling pilot subset duplicate specimens return unused material","core archive sampling minimum reserve threshold cumulative cap analytical data return","rare geological sample allocation contamination custody rollback destructive experiment"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","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/","publisher":"Journal of Natural Science Collections / University College London Discovery","date_or_year":"2018","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Destructive sampling can make museum staff reluctant to permit some research uses.","Improved analytical methods can require smaller samples than older methods.","The authors argue that scientific benefits can outweigh preservation risks and provide an adaptable policy and request-form model."]},{"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":"Current policy, accessed 2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["An operating geological repository already uses quantitative eligibility and reserve rules: ordinary samples are capped at one cubic inch or a one-inch plug, larger samples require case-specific justification, and a continuous core portion must remain.","The repository prohibits sampling that would eliminate an interval and prohibits high-consumption recovery of scarce mineral grains.","Unused material and analytical results or thin sections must be returned within six months, and access can be withheld when data returns are overdue."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Geology Policies","url":"https://www.fieldmuseum.org/page/geology-policies","publisher":"Field Museum","date_or_year":"Current policy, accessed 2026","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A geology collection already evaluates destructive testing proposals through an authorized collections team using expected sample size, method, researcher success, and specimen substitutability.","The policy explicitly calls for a pilot study on a small specimen subset before broader destructive sampling.","It requires detailed sampling records, duplicate or similar specimens, return of unused material, and return of generated sections and data."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Special Terms and Conditions for Technical Analysis/Destructive Sampling","url":"https://www.priweb.org/collections/destructive-sampling","publisher":"Paleontological Research Institution","date_or_year":"2017","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A paleontological repository routinely distinguishes non-type bulk material from types, figured specimens, rare specimens, and material underrepresented by taxonomy, geography, or age.","Requests are assessed for necessity, scientific usefulness, investigator competence, and likely analytical success rather than being governed solely by a collection-wide prohibition.","Unused portions, powders, sections, molds, and other products must be labeled, documented, and returned; noncompliance can bar future requests."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Destructive Analysis","url":"https://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/vertebrate-zoology/mammals/collections-access/destructive-analysis","publisher":"Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History","date_or_year":"Current page noting policy effective after September 1, 2024","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Destructive-sampling decisions are made by a committee of curators and collections managers and weigh proposed merit against estimated future demand for the specimen.","Requests are not always approved.","Low staffing causes the museum to process only a limited number of many monthly requests, supplying evidence that administrative capacity as well as specimen risk can constrain access."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums and Code of Ethics for Natural History Museums","url":"https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/code-of-ethics/","publisher":"International Council of Museums","date_or_year":"Code first adopted 1986; natural-history code approved 2013; revised code adopted 2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["ICOM describes its code as minimum professional standards governing museum practice, including legal compliance, security, provenance, collection management, returns, and restitution.","The natural-history code specifically supplies a normative basis for institutions managing natural-history material, including rocks, minerals, and fossils.","A sampling redesign remains subordinate to legal title, provenance, security, and other custodial duties rather than overriding them."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Amostras de rochas e fluidos","url":"https://www.gov.br/anp/pt-br/assuntos/exploracao-e-producao-de-oleo-e-gas/dados-tecnicos/amostras-de-rochas-e-fluidos","publisher":"Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis, Brazil","date_or_year":"Published 2020; updated 2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"Portuguese","claims_supported":["Brazil's official rock-and-fluid archive uses formal applicant registration, eligibility checks, confidentiality checks, availability review, and an annual access limit of 20 wells.","Repositories assess availability and cost after an anonymized request is transmitted by the regulator.","The regime includes special treatment for destructively analyzed core plugs and permits technically justified exceptions to ordinary sample-removal procedures."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"国家航天局关于印发《月球样品管理办法》的通知 (Measures for the Administration of Lunar Samples)","url":"https://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758823/n6758839/c6811124/content.html","publisher":"China National Space Administration","date_or_year":"2021","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"Chinese with official English text","claims_supported":["An official planetary-geological sample regime classifies material into permanent, backup, research, and public-benefit categories, preserving pristine reserves while allocating research material.","Applications undergo centralized expert review; destructive experiments must be minimized, justified, documented, and recorded for traceability.","The regime identifies responsible legal persons, requires return of remnants and reporting of results, and provides termination, immediate reporting, inspection, and legal-response mechanisms for contamination, damage, loss, or agreement violations."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The broader access problem exists: destructive methods can cause curatorial reluctance, requests are sometimes rejected, and limited staffing can restrict processing. However, the bounded search did not find denial records showing that geological repositories routinely reject otherwise feasible microsampling specifically because a blanket or coarse rule ignores abundance, uniqueness, and requested volume. Several geological repositories instead already differentiate those factors.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC5"],"uncertainty":"Published policies reveal rules but not the counterfactual quality, volume, or reasons for denied requests. The proposal's exact diagnosis therefore requires a repository-level audit."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Identifiable adopters and authorizers include repository collections managers, curators, collections committees, directors, regulators, and expert allocation bodies. Existing policies assign decisions to the USGS Core Research Center staff or director, the Field Museum collections team, PRI collections governance, the Smithsonian committee, Brazil's ANP, and China's lunar-sample authority.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The exact governing body and consent requirements depend on ownership, donor terms, permits, governmental deposits, and community or cultural claims for the selected collection."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The intervention's main mechanisms are already operational in multiple settings: specimen or sample-class distinctions, quantitative consumption limits, retained reserves, case-specific justification, pilot subsets, authorized review, documentation, remnant return, data return, compliance sanctions, and contamination or loss escalation.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The sources establish policy existence, not comparative effectiveness, access equity, compliance quality, or scientific output per unit consumed."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"USGS Core Research Center sampling policy","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses sample-specific material-sufficiency review, numerical size and frequency caps, a mandatory continuous reserve, categorical exclusions for high-consumption analyses, return of unused material, public data return, and sanctions for overdue results.","remaining_difference":"It is an operating access policy rather than a six-month randomized or comparative pilot, and it does not publish an access-equity audit or outcome measure of evidence yield per unit consumed."},{"name":"Field Museum Geological Collections destructive-testing protocols","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Requires proposal-specific review of destruction, prior methodological success, a small-subset pilot, duplicate or similar specimens, documentation, and return of unused material and resulting sections or data.","remaining_difference":"The public policy does not specify cumulative collection caps, preset rollback thresholds, or a formal comparison of approvals and scientific yield against the former rule."},{"name":"Paleontological Research Institution technical-analysis/destructive-sampling policy","source_ids":["SRC4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Distinguishes ordinary non-type and bulk material from type, figured, rare, and underrepresented specimens; assesses necessity, competence, and expected success; and mandates return and labeling of remnants.","remaining_difference":"Its categories are policy-based rather than an explicitly scored low-risk rubric, and the public policy does not describe a time-limited outcome and equity evaluation."},{"name":"CNSA lunar-sample classification and allocation regime","source_ids":["SRC8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Separates permanent reserves from allocable research material, minimizes and reviews destructive use, requires traceability and return, and supplies suspension and incident-response authority.","remaining_difference":"Lunar samples are exceptionally scarce and centrally governed, and the regime is not evidence that a low-risk terrestrial geological class can be defined or that relaxed access improves output."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"No credible broad novelty claim remains for risk-tiered destructive-sampling permission, reserves, caps, pilot subsets, documentation, data return, or compliance controls. A narrower falsifiable contribution remains: at one repository whose denial audit first confirms coarse decision-making, a preclassified low-risk rubric with explicit cumulative caps, equity monitoring, and preset rollback thresholds may improve completed valid analyses and reusable returned data per unit consumed relative to that repository's prior process.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The incremental claim is falsified if a blinded pre-pilot audit shows that existing decisions already use equivalent specimen-specific criteria, or if a controlled pilot fails to improve completed valid analyses or reusable data per unit consumed, increases review burden without compensating value, breaches preservation or compliance tolerances, or worsens access equity.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"This bounded eight-source review covered six adversarial lanes and multiple jurisdictions but did not inspect nonpublic decision files, denial datasets, implementation audits, every repository policy, patents, or all languages. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, routine compliance, or realized impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"External evidence supports reluctance, nonapproval, and capacity constraints around destructive sampling, but does not establish the proposal's narrower claim that coarse geological rules routinely block feasible high-value microsampling.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Comparable repositories publicly assign authority to named institutional roles or bodies, including collections teams, curators, directors, committees, regulators, and expert allocation authorities.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although the intervention package is established practice, a repository-specific comparative claim about explicit cumulative caps, equity monitoring, preset rollback thresholds, and valid evidence returned per unit consumed remains distinct and falsifiable.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A blinded audit of a defined repository's recent requests and denials is bounded and should precede any pilot. If it confirms coarse denials, a small-subset pilot with fixed caps and return metrics is operationally precedented.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC5"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No inherent stop prevents authorized research on a preclassified low-risk class. Existing regimes show that reserves, categorical exclusions, legal-person responsibility, expert approval, traceability, return duties, and incident suspension can preserve authority and safety. Legally, culturally, or custodially restricted material must remain excluded absent explicit authorization.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC6","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The search covered all six required lanes, retained exactly eight opened direct sources from eight institutional or publishing contexts, included official standards and first-party policies, and searched English plus German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese terminology.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Conduct a blinded audit of a single repository's recent destructive-sampling requests, recording proposed volume, specimen abundance and uniqueness, legal or custodial constraints, scientific merit, decision, review time, and denial reason. Proceed to the proposed capped pilot only if the audit identifies feasible high-value requests rejected because the current rule is materially coarser than the established comparators.","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes close, routinely published institutional analogues and therefore does not support novelty of the general problem-intervention package. It does not establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, or the absence of additional prior art; only the narrow repository-specific comparative outcome claim remains open."}