{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"775b26fd65b9f32fd7e89e40b58d9d58e5df703f8a55ad34bbd0bbcb16b67061","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The astronomy problem is independently specified as loss of usable observing capacity caused by nontransferable or slowly reassigned awards, rather than being inferred solely from the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate maps a specific allocation wedge, blocked qualified use, preserved scarcity and merit constraints, a bounded redesign, incidence review, and reversible monitoring to domain-real scheduling objects."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prequalification and conditional reassignment directly target the asserted blockage between released usable capacity and compatible unmet programs; the candidate also distinguishes this lever from physical downtime, raw scarcity, and mere notification cost."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core components are translated coherently, selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, allocation, matching, safeguard, and test roles, and rejected price mechanisms are not smuggled into the intervention."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effect claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no citations, measurements, or established-effect claims are fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers use observable overlap, utilization, completion, burden, quality, and incidence outcomes and could independently defeat the diagnosis or the proposed redesign."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to observatory scheduling and governance bodies; the first step is bounded, exclusions preserve safety and peer review, and explicit halt and rollback conditions constrain the pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal cleanly preserves legitimate scarcity while repairing an avoidable allocation wedge and carries the archetype's safeguard, incidence, behavioral-response, monitoring, and rollback structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Targets, observing conditions, instrument compatibility, time-allocation review, proprietary data, and operations constraints are used coherently, though their prevalence at actual observatories remains unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Advance eligibility and compatibility matching plausibly shorten reassignment and recover otherwise expiring usable slots, but the magnitude depends on overlap and staff capacity that have not yet been observed."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Required components are rendered as concrete scheduling analyses, rules, records, safeguards, pilot boundaries, and decision triggers, with the irrelevant monetary diagnostic explicitly excluded."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts nonfungibility, physical downtime, peer-review legitimacy, strategic behavior, unequal rapid-response capacity, staff bottlenecks, and misleading utilization metrics."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes telescope-time scarcity as a narrower loss from stale assignment rigidity without denying the legitimacy of the capacity limit or merit allocation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded retrospective analysis and prospective pilot are actionable and measurable, although operational thresholds, comparison construction, and data availability still require local specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is scoped, reversible, and restricted to prequalified programs, offering plausible capacity recovery with contained but meaningful fairness, workload, and legitimacy risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet expressly reports no prior-art search, so distinctiveness from existing dynamic or queue scheduling practices is unevidenced."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The empirical size of the recoverable overlap is unknown.","repair":"Before rollout, estimate usable released capacity, compatible ready demand, reassignment latency, and staff burden from a historical cycle using prespecified exclusions.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate presents the overlap and expected recovery as hypotheses rather than established observatory facts."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing observatory queue, service, or dynamic scheduling practices has not been established.","repair":"Conduct a targeted prior-art and practice review and state which operational rule, governance feature, or evaluation design is genuinely distinct.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty cannot be inferred from the closed-book packet because prior art is explicitly unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior repair record and no change to the problem or causal-lever identifiers."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-coherent, falsifiable, bounded, and authority-aware application. Its main unresolved boundary is empirical and novelty validation, which is openly disclosed and does not undermine the internal quality of the proposed pilot."}