{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__accounting_auditing","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"271c5f35d1449ffa4bcff7ddc6d0eca5366ebff28039e7e57987cb0addddf31f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a domain-specific problem involving a coarse mandatory-assurance threshold, rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The threshold rule, blocked activity, protected assurance purpose, incidence analysis, bounded redesign, and rollback path correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed eligibility redesign acts on the identified binary assignment rule, with an explicit chain from tiering through resource recovery and assurance outcomes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Required components are translated coherently, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, causal, operational, and safeguard roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported jurisdictional or outcome claim is presented as fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers distinguish absence of a threshold distortion from failure of the risk-tiered remedy."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Legal authority is explicitly reserved to empowered bodies, high-risk cases are excluded, assurance distinctions are protected, and halt, expiry, and reversion controls are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal instantiates the wedge, protected purpose, incidence, redesign, behavioral response, monitoring, and reversibility structure with high completeness."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate respects assurance scope, independence, third-party reliance, fraud and misstatement risk, oversight authority, and the distinction between audit and review engagements."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The lever is well matched to the threshold assignment, but the existence of excess assurance scope and the protective adequacy of the alternative remain empirical conjectures."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every archetype component receives a concrete accounting or auditing realization, while the inapplicable price component is correctly marked incompatible."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts third-party protection, adverse selection, eligibility gaming, assurance confusion, shifted costs, capture, and the possibility that the apparent burden is legitimate protection."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes a generic audit-cost concern as a potentially avoidable assurance-allocation wedge while keeping information protection and legitimacy visible."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The retrospective design, bounded pilot, baseline, outcomes, exclusions, and rollback logic are actionable, though eligibility rules and adverse-event bounds still require operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential capacity and burden gains are meaningful and exposure is bounded, but reduced detection, deterrence, and third-party reliance remain consequential risks requiring evidence."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing audit-exemption and assurance-tier regimes is not established."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal provides no evidence that the intervention or framing is distinct from existing assurance-tier and audit-exemption regimes.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, compare the proposed pathway with relevant statutory exemptions, review-engagement regimes, regulatory pilots, and published evaluations.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural quality and testability but contains no prior-art findings."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Eligibility criteria and adverse-event limits are described conceptually rather than as auditable decision rules.","repair":"Pre-register measurable risk criteria, outcome definitions, escalation logic, and cohort-level stopping rules before authorization of a pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The packet identifies the necessary controls but does not supply validated thresholds or jurisdiction-specific definitions."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears every reject-first gate and presents a structurally faithful, domain-aware, falsifiable, and authority-bounded conjecture suitable for deeper research. Its central empirical claims remain unverified, and novelty is unsupported, but those limitations are disclosed and do not undermine the quality of the proposed test."}