Even if someone points you to the exact book or paper that addresses the area you’re interested in, The creation of a heuretic has two steps - conception and implementation and discovery doesn’t accomplish either of these steps. Even if I put two papers in front of you and am 100% positive you could use the information in the two of them to come up with an amazing new idea, the burden is still entirely on you to synthesize them, conceive the new idea and implement it. Part of the reason for this is that Constraints and assumptions are not directly observable in literature
Academic research is often just the concept half of creating a heuretic. If you want to actually use the thing for something are probably many Learning by doing heuretics that still need to be discovered by implementing the thing. Implementation is the actualization of the heuretic in the real world .
Discovery could only create a heuretic if everything was written in propositional logic. This is why everybody is obsessed with structured data: §Knowledge Graphs and ontologies. The approaches to undiscovered public knowledge that are not just pure discovery all rely on areas that are already incredibly structured like Using computers to search databases of existing molecules or compounds to suggest new uses or areas where people have gone through and painstakingly structured the information (Structuring knowledge is expensive.) The only way Using published literature to find causal relationships that can be connected to lead to a new causal relationship works is if the causal relationships have been put in a structured format.
Most Undiscovered public knowledge discovery (UPKD) approaches aim to surface two or more pieces of knowledge that are related and potentially could be connected through Idea sex. Discovery is very amenable to modern machine learning techniques that are good at discovering latent patterns. The most basic version of discovery is search which is why Commercial approaches to UPKD act like specialized search engines.