{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__agricultural_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"083c1f0e37a03fb706c739f81b346b211ca83a1bf41a91cfac277c8e3e966ef6","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The irrigation-allocation mismatch is independently recognizable through entitlement, request, delivery, and flow records and is not defined merely by analogy to the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the legitimate water limit while targeting a distinct allocation wedge that can strand authorized water or mistime delivery, closely corresponding to avoidable loss within a protected constraint."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Temporary screened reallocation directly changes the hypothesized binding rule, and the chain from compatible reassignment through crop-stage delivery to recovered agronomic value is explicit and testable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is complete and internally coherent; selected mechanisms have differentiated diagnostic, causal, operational, safeguard, and test-design roles, while mismatched price mechanisms are rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effect size, legal feasibility, and novelty are explicitly bounded as unverified. Scientific uncertainties about return flows, conveyance, scarcity, and transferability are surfaced rather than asserted away."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether compatible stranded supply and unmet demand actually coexist, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether screened reallocation improves outcomes without violating hard gates."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is conditional on competent approvals and holder consent; the first step is bounded and reversible, excluded actions are explicit, and ecological, rights, equity, and operational breaches trigger rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal precisely separates the protected aggregate cap from the potentially wasteful allocation rule and carries incidence, safeguards, monitoring, and reversibility through the design."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The treatment reflects irrigation hydrology, conveyance, crop-stage demand, return flows, legal priority, and heterogeneous farm access, though site-specific feasibility remains unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The lever can plausibly recover value when entitlement rigidity is binding, but the effect is conditional on lawful hydrologic compatibility and sufficient voluntary participation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain-specific disposition, including justified incompatibility for the monetary price diagnostic and appropriate adaptations for friction and compensation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts absolute scarcity, nonfungibility, return-flow dependence, strategic behavior, administrative burden, and harm to nonparticipants with meaningful rejection conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Distinguishing scarcity limits from within-cap allocation rigidity creates a materially useful intervention space beyond either relaxing the cap or merely improving schedules."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The audit and bounded pilot provide observable comparisons, hard gates, and rollback, although local metric definitions, sampling, and decision thresholds still require implementation specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential agronomic gains are paired with tight exposure limits and safeguards, but water-rights impairment and hydrologic spillovers remain consequential uncertainties."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repair registry, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for success. Its strongest features are the cap-versus-allocation distinction, domain-aware hydrologic safeguards, separate falsifiers, and a reversible pilot; novelty remains wholly unevidenced but does not undermine the bounded causal proposal."}