{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__literature_literary_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"deadweight_loss_reduction","domain_slug":"literature_literary_theory","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"fixed_canonical_title_quotas_crowd_out_equivalent_literary_study","causal_lever_id":"replace_title_quotas_with_coverage_floors_and_flexible_slots","proposal":{"problem":"Fixed canonical-title quotas in graduate examination reading lists can consume scarce reading slots and exclude works that could satisfy the same historical, formal, or theoretical learning purposes. The independently recognizable loss is compulsory low-yield reading plus foregone study of relevant works, not merely dissatisfaction with the canon. The quotas also protect shared disciplinary competence, comparability, and access to common references, so wholesale removal is not justified.","actors_substrate":["graduate students","literature faculty and examination committees","curriculum authorities","authors and traditions represented or excluded","libraries and archives"],"observable_state":"Required-title slots remain occupied despite weak connection to stated competencies; substitution petitions recur; relevant available works are excluded; students report displaced reading time; outcomes vary little with some required titles. These target-domain claims are HYPOTHESIS pending local measurement.","consequence":"Scarce reading time is allocated by inherited title status rather than marginal pedagogical value, producing low-value substitution and underuse of relevant texts while potentially concentrating exclusion on less-canonical traditions.","affected_objective":"Recover scholarly and pedagogical value per bounded reading slot while preserving common disciplinary competence, fair expectations, and legitimate curriculum authority.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"value-blocking wedge","domain_realization":"Mandatory title-level quotas constrain which works may occupy finite examination-list slots.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"blocked beneficial activity","domain_realization":"Students and supervisors cannot substitute contextually stronger works even when those works plausibly meet the same assessed competencies.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"protected purpose","domain_realization":"Shared references, historical coverage, assessment comparability, and protection against arbitrary omission remain required.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"surplus recovery","domain_realization":"Recovered value is improved learning, research relevance, representation, and reading time rather than monetary surplus.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"specific redesign","domain_realization":"Retain outcome-based coverage floors and a small common core while making remaining slots substitutable through a transparent rubric.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"bounded adjustment","domain_realization":"Test one cohort and restore the prior list if competence, fairness, or workload thresholds deteriorate.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Distortion Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Trace title mandates to displaced works, reading hours, petitions, and assessed outcomes."},{"component":"Protected Constraint Safeguard","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Retain common-core and coverage requirements tied to explicit competencies."},{"component":"Surplus Estimate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Estimate recovered reading hours and gains in relevance and coverage, with uncertainty."},{"component":"Affected-Party Incidence Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Record effects on students, faculty, traditions, assessors, libraries, and future cohorts."},{"component":"Redesign Lever","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Replace some fixed-title quotas with coverage floors and rubric-governed flexible slots."},{"component":"Distributional Review","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Test whether flexibility shifts advising burdens or reproduces exclusion through faculty discretion."},{"component":"Behavioral Response Model","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Anticipate easy-text selection, adviser capture, rubric gaming, workload expansion, and fragmentation."},{"component":"Implementation Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"One program, one cohort, fixed slot count, predefined eligible substitutions."},{"component":"Monitoring and Rebound Check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Monitor competence, workload, representation, petitions, grading consistency, and list inflation."},{"component":"Rollback or Adjustment Rule","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Restore titles or tighten the rubric when preset thresholds fail."},{"component":"Cost–Benefit Assessment Frame","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Compare learning and inclusion gains against lost commonality, administration, and transition cost."},{"component":"Price-Wedge Diagnostic","status":"incompatible","domain_realization":"No monetary or administered-price wedge is posited; the binding constraint is allocation by title."},{"component":"Friction Source Breakdown","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Separate substantive coverage needs from inherited titles, serial petitions, and unclear equivalence rules."},{"component":"Compensating Adjustment Plan","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Provide common-reference seminars and shared annotations if fewer titles are universal."},{"component":"Legitimacy and Authority Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Confirm curriculum authority, assessment obligations, and participation by affected students and faculty."},{"component":"Sensitivity Analysis","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Vary assumptions about equivalence, reading time, assessor consistency, and value assigned to common reference."},{"component":"Pilot or Sunset Path","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Use a cohort pilot with automatic expiry unless evidence supports renewal."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"congestion_or_capacity_pricing_adjustment","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reading scarcity cannot be fairly or meaningfully allocated through payment.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or operational change."},{"slug":"cost_benefit_assessment_protocol","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use a plural, nonmonetary ledger of learning, time, commonality, inclusion, and burden.","counterfactual_removal":"Aggregate flexibility claims could conceal concentrated losses or contested values."},{"slug":"distortion_reduction_review","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Distinguish avoidable title rigidity from legitimate competence and comparability requirements.","counterfactual_removal":"There would be no defensible basis for identifying which mandates are repairable."},{"slug":"impact_assessment_table","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Give each affected group a row with effects, protected interests, uncertainty, and triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Distributional and representation harms become easier to hide in average outcomes."},{"slug":"matching_improvement_program","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Discovery may matter, but willing readers and available texts are not the primary failure; eligibility rules bind.","counterfactual_removal":"The proposed allocation repair is unchanged."},{"slug":"permit_or_approval_streamlining","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Replace repeated substitution petitions with one transparent equivalence rubric and parallel review.","counterfactual_removal":"Flexible slots remain usable but administrative delay could recreate the wedge."},{"slug":"price_control_redesign","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No ceiling, floor, subsidy, or compensable price protection exists.","counterfactual_removal":"No change."},{"slug":"quota_or_allocation_rule_review","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Hold total workload and protected coverage fixed while revising how reading slots are assigned.","counterfactual_removal":"The title-allocation wedge remains intact."},{"slug":"regulatory_simplification_pilot","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Adapt rule pilot logic to one graduate cohort with monitoring and expiry.","counterfactual_removal":"The intervention would require an unjustified permanent or system-wide commitment."},{"slug":"sunset_clause_review","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require fixed-title mandates and the pilot rule periodically to re-earn continuation.","counterfactual_removal":"Obsolete mandates may silently persist after conditions change."},{"slug":"tariff_fee_or_toll_redesign","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Curricular requirements are not authority-imposed monetary charges.","counterfactual_removal":"No change."}],"causal_chain":["Fixed titles occupy finite reading-list slots regardless of current competency contribution.","Equivalent or stronger works are excluded and reading time shifts to lower-yield compliance.","Coverage floors plus flexible slots preserve assessed purposes while allowing substitution.","Transparent approval and common-reference compensation make substitution usable without erasing comparability.","A bounded pilot reveals whether recovered relevance and time exceed fragmentation, inequity, and administrative costs.","Monitoring, expiry, and rollback contain adverse behavioral responses."],"baseline":"Continue the inherited fixed-title list, handling exceptions through individual petitions and adding desired works as optional reading.","nearest_rival":"Add elective or supplementary texts without changing mandatory titles; this broadens exposure but increases workload and does not release scarce slots.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["current and future graduate students","faculty advisers and examiners","curriculum committees","represented and excluded literary traditions"],"decision_authority":"The formally empowered graduate curriculum committee, subject to institutional assessment rules and documented student consultation.","authorized_first_step":"Audit one program's list, then randomize or matched-compare one consenting cohort using the same total slots, protected coverage floor, common core, and published substitution rubric.","excluded_actions":["abolishing all common readings","expanding total required workload during the test","charging for preferred slots","changing degree standards without authorized review","using aggregate gains to override demonstrated group harm"],"halt_rollback":"Halt new substitutions and restore the prior list if competence or grading consistency falls beyond a preset margin, workload rises, protected coverage fails, complaints indicate material inequity, or review capacity is exceeded."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Canonical titles may be non-substitutable coordination infrastructure: their value may emerge across courses and cohorts rather than in immediate assessments. Flexible lists could also privilege well-advised students and replace visible canonical exclusion with opaque faculty discretion.","analogy_break":"Literary value is contested and cannot be treated as transferable surplus; reading slots are not market goods, and a common canon may constitute the educational practice rather than merely obstruct it.","failure_condition":"The redesign fails if protected competencies require the specific shared titles, if flexibility increases unequal advising or assessment inconsistency, or if administrative review consumes the recovered reading value.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if no relevant works are excluded by finite title quotas, substitutions do not satisfy equivalent objectives, or fixed titles measurably outperform feasible substitutes enough to justify their displacement cost.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if the bounded pilot does not improve prespecified learning, relevance, workload, or representation outcomes, or if it breaches competence, fairness, common-reference, or administrative thresholds.","risks":["fragmentation of shared disciplinary reference","rubric gaming and selection of easier texts","adviser-driven inequity","tokenistic representation","measurement that privileges easily tested learning","list expansion that destroys recovered capacity","unauthorized weakening of degree standards"]},"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 transfer. The target-domain diagnosis and expected effects are hypotheses; the packet supports the archetype and mechanism relations but supplies no empirical evidence about graduate reading-list practice."}