{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__gender_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"gender_studies","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"nonrequired_legal_name_gate_institutional_access","causal_lever_id":"field_specific_identity_record_separation","proposal":{"problem":"Institutions may require a legal name to appear across systems and interactions where legal identity is not required. For transgender, nonbinary, and other people using a different name, this coarse rule can expose prior identity, create record mismatches, and deter participation while exceeding legitimate reporting and verification needs.","actors_substrate":["transgender and nonbinary students, workers, patients, and researchers","other people whose used name differs from their legal name","frontline staff and system administrators","privacy, records, legal, and equity authorities"],"observable_state":"HYPOTHESIS: Auditable indicators include legal-name propagation into non-required interfaces, mismatch-related tickets, repeated manual corrections, processing delays, unwanted disclosure reports, and abandoned or avoided institutional interactions.","consequence":"People bear avoidable disclosure, delay, correction work, and participation barriers; staff repeatedly reconcile records; institutional capacity is consumed by exceptions without necessarily improving verification.","affected_objective":"Enable safe and equitable institutional participation while preserving legally necessary identity verification, record integrity, privacy, and accurate reporting.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"value-blocking wedge","domain_realization":"A single legal-name requirement governs both legally necessary records and ordinary display or communication fields.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"blocked beneficial activity","domain_realization":"Affected people avoid, delay, or expend extra effort on education, work, care, and research interactions.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"protected purpose","domain_realization":"Some records require stable identity linkage for legal reporting, safety, fraud prevention, or continuity.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"less-distortive redesign","domain_realization":"Separate used-name display from confidential legal-identity linkage on a field-by-field, purpose-limited basis.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Distortion Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Trace every legal-name field, propagation path, exception, and resulting behavior."},{"component":"Protected Constraint Safeguard","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retain confidential legal identity wherever a documented legal, safety, or verification purpose requires it."},{"component":"Surplus Estimate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Estimate recovered participation, avoided correction time, fewer mismatches, and reduced disclosure; do not force dignity into money."},{"component":"Affected-Party Incidence Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record effects on affected users, staff, record owners, regulators, and parties relying on accurate identity linkage."},{"component":"Redesign Lever","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Use field-specific purpose rules: used name by default, confidential legal name only where necessary, joined by a stable identifier."},{"component":"Distributional Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Test whether access differs by gender identity, race, disability, immigration status, language, or ability to obtain legal changes."},{"component":"Behavioral Response Model","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Predict uptake, support demand, staff workarounds, malicious alias use, and mismatch displacement."},{"component":"Implementation Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Start with consenting users and low-risk display, directory, and communication fields; exclude regulated records."},{"component":"Monitoring and Rebound Check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Track errors, disclosure incidents, access outcomes, correction time, complaints, and workarounds."},{"component":"Rollback or Adjustment Rule","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Revert affected fields or narrow eligibility if serious identification, safety, or privacy errors exceed preset limits."},{"component":"Cost–Benefit Assessment Frame","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Compare participation and administrative gains against implementation cost, error risk, and protected-purpose loss."},{"component":"Price-Wedge Diagnostic","status":"omitted","domain_realization":"No monetary price is hypothesized to be the binding wedge."},{"component":"Friction Source Breakdown","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate substantive verification from redundant display, propagation, approval, and correction burdens."},{"component":"Compensating Adjustment Plan","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Provide confidential escalation and assisted correction where legal-name display remains mandatory."},{"component":"Legitimacy and Authority Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Document the authority and purpose for each retained legal-name use and for each configuration change."},{"component":"Sensitivity Analysis","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Recalculate the case under different uptake, error, participation, and harm assumptions."},{"component":"Pilot or Sunset Path","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Run a time-limited pilot that expires to the prior configuration unless evidence supports renewal."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"congestion_or_capacity_pricing_adjustment","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"The problem is neither peak congestion nor rationing by a variable access price.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal changes nothing."},{"slug":"cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use a plural-value ledger with nonmonetized privacy, dignity, and rights effects plus sensitivity analysis.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot could run, but its aggregate result could conceal concentrated harm or fragile assumptions."},{"slug":"distortion_reduction_review","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"It separates unnecessary legal-name propagation from necessary verification.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, the proposal cannot establish that the gate is avoidable rather than protective."},{"slug":"impact_assessment_table","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Rows identify differential gains, losses, protected purposes, and monitoring triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Distributional and disclosure harms become easier to hide in an average outcome."},{"slug":"matching_improvement_program","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Willing parties failing to pair is not the hypothesized cause.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal changes nothing."},{"slug":"permit_or_approval_streamlining","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Adapt its oversight-versus-drag split to identity-field approval and correction workflows.","counterfactual_removal":"The diagnosis would lack an executable process redesign that preserves substantive checks."},{"slug":"price_control_redesign","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"There is no administered price, shortage, or compensating price instrument.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal changes nothing."},{"slug":"quota_or_allocation_rule_review","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Although the gate resembles eligibility, no scarce quota or divisible allocation is involved.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal changes nothing."},{"slug":"regulatory_simplification_pilot","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use a walled-off, consenting cohort, live safeguards, automatic expiry, and evidence-based renewal.","counterfactual_removal":"Initial deployment would lose its bounded, reversible evidence path."},{"slug":"sunset_clause_review","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"The pilot already expires; a separate standing-rule sunset is not necessary for the first test.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot's causal and safety logic remains intact."},{"slug":"tariff_fee_or_toll_redesign","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No authority-imposed charge is the relevant barrier.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal changes nothing."}],"causal_chain":["A canonical legal-name field propagates beyond contexts that require legal identity.","Affected users encounter disclosure risk, mismatch, correction work, or avoidance.","Field-specific purpose rules suppress unnecessary propagation while retaining confidential linkage.","Lower exposure and correction burden increase usable access and reduce administrative rework.","Monitoring tests whether gains occur without unacceptable identity, safety, privacy, or reporting failures."],"baseline":"One canonical legal-name value propagates by default; deviations require manual, case-by-case exceptions and repeated correction.","nearest_rival":"A manual chosen-name exception process that preserves the same default propagation and relies on staff discretion.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["people requesting a used name","people exposed by unwanted disclosure","frontline staff","record and system owners","parties relying on legally accurate records"],"decision_authority":"The institution's data-governance authority, with legal, privacy, security, accessibility, records, and affected-party review, may authorize only fields under its mandate.","authorized_first_step":"Audit field purposes, then run a time-limited opt-in pilot in low-risk display and communication fields with stable confidential linkage and preset metrics.","excluded_actions":["altering regulated or legal records without lawful authority","publicly exposing the legal-to-used-name linkage","removing identity checks needed for safety or reporting","making irreversible system-wide changes","treating aggregate efficiency as overriding consent or rights"],"halt_rollback":"Immediately suspend affected propagation rules and restore the prior field configuration after a serious disclosure, identification, safety, or reporting event; otherwise stop when preset error or harm thresholds are crossed."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A field audit could show that nearly every legal-name use is legally or operationally necessary, that existing separation already works, or that separation reliably causes serious identification and continuity failures.","analogy_break":"Identity is not a commodity, and disclosure, recognition, and dignity cannot be reduced to exchange surplus; additionally, some record consistency is rights- or safety-protective rather than waste.","failure_condition":"The candidate fails if the apparent burden primarily reflects indispensable identity linkage or if no field-level separation can preserve that linkage.","problem_falsifier":"No meaningful unnecessary propagation, mismatch, disclosure, delay, correction burden, or participation effect is found relative to the baseline.","intervention_falsifier":"The pilot does not improve access or correction outcomes, or it increases serious privacy, identity, safety, or reporting failures beyond preset thresholds.","risks":["unauthorized disclosure through linkage tables","identity confusion or record fragmentation","fraud or impersonation","unequal pilot access","staff workarounds that recreate exposure","measurement that discounts dignity or avoidance","scope creep into legally controlled records"]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"MECHANISM_COMPOSITION","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","evidence_maturity":"HYPOTHESIS"},"revision_change_log":{"revision_kind":"ORIGINAL","prior_problem_id":null,"prior_causal_lever_id":null,"problem_changed":false,"causal_lever_changed":false,"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"repairs_addressed":[]},"confidence":0.78,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural candidate. Domain-specific prevalence, effects, legal requirements, and intervention performance remain unverified hypotheses; no novelty claim is made."}