{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__archaeology_paleontology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"37516645e1751d94b7445d43c7fb70e167c054263353daa23f720bfde52fdae3","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate states an independently recognizable repository-governance problem involving coarse destructive-sampling review, missed research opportunities, and irreplaceable materials."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The uniform approval path is a specific allocation and process wedge; blocked activity, protected stewardship purposes, bounded redesign, incidence, and monitoring correspond directly to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The causal chain connects coarse review to avoidable routing and rework, then to abandoned acceptable studies, while allowing substantive review or applicant incompleteness to defeat the diagnosis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Required components are translated into domain artifacts, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and the selected diagnostic, streamlining, assessment, and pilot mechanisms retain their defining functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prevalence and effect claims are explicitly hypotheses, prior art is marked unsearched, uncertainty is preserved, and no unsupported empirical result or authority claim is presented as established."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes procedural drag from scarcity, weak proposals, and mandatory review, while the intervention falsifier separately tests completion gains and protection harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves legal, cultural, conservation, provenance, consent, and community gates; limits authority to the repository's authorized body; and specifies bounded rollout, halt conditions, and rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The wedge, protected purpose, blocked value, incidence, redesign, behavioral response, boundary, monitoring, and rollback structure are all explicit and mutually coherent."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal treats specimens as finite and context-dependent, recognizes future option value and provenance, and gives descendant and source communities substantive standing rather than reducing the domain to research throughput."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanism from uniform review to delay and abandonment is plausible and testable, but the prevalence of avoidable delay and its effect on completed acceptable research remain unmeasured."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and honest about incompatible price diagnostics, with safeguards and operational artifacts attached to each relevant function."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts scarcity, substantive review, applicant incompleteness, cumulative consumption, gaming, inequitable access, staff burden, and non-tradable rights."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing usefully separates recoverable procedural loss from legitimate stewardship and makes incidence visible, although much of the operational intervention remains recognizable approval-process redesign."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"Observable outcomes, a baseline, an eligible pilot boundary, escalation, monitoring, falsifiers, and rollback are specified, but eligibility rules and trigger thresholds still require local co-design and calibration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded sunset pilot offers meaningful learning with retained substantive gates, though classification error and cumulative irreversible consumption keep residual risk material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the proposal or its implementation pattern is novel."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Eligibility criteria and halt triggers are conceptually clear but not operationally calibrated.","repair":"Before launch, co-design auditable risk-tier rules and pre-committed trigger definitions using historical cases and affected-party review.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a test design, not validated classification accuracy or acceptable local trigger levels."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal has no novelty or prior-art evidence.","repair":"Compare the design with published repository sampling policies, expedited-review programs, and collection-governance pilots before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation supports structural merit only; it cannot establish originality."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"The problem and causal-lever identifiers are original and unchanged, with no prior revision from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, falsifiable, and authority-bounded transfer. Its main unresolved questions concern local empirical magnitude, operational calibration, and prior art rather than conceptual fit or safety architecture."}