{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__aviation_aeronautics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"eace093df50206fa91a3f63f467139fb327944df41f0011055d00629d8204201","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The airport-slot problem is independently specified through actors, observable records, consequences, a baseline, and airport-specific falsifiers rather than being inferred solely from the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Historic precedence and blunt utilization rules form a plausible allocation wedge between qualified demand and weakly used capacity, while the proposed redesign preserves the declared capacity cap and other protected constraints."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The supervised surrender, exchange, and reallocation pool directly changes slot contestability and timely return; the causal chain distinguishes this lever from capacity expansion and price-based scarcity allocation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate translates the core diagnostic, incidence, safeguard, redesign, behavioral, boundary, monitoring, rollback, authority, and sensitivity components. Selected mechanisms have explicit roles and counterfactual-removal tests, while mismatched mechanisms are rejected with reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical existence, magnitude, legality, and comparative performance are consistently bounded as hypotheses or unresolved matters. The candidate does not present airport-specific findings or prior-art claims as established facts."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether rule-attributable stranded slots coexist with qualified unmet demand, whereas the intervention falsifier separately tests whether reallocation improves reliable use and service without unacceptable protected-outcome harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial operational scope is limited to shadow allocation, voluntary exchange, and slots already eligible under law. Safety limits remain fixed, competent authority and due process are required, excluded actions are explicit, and prospective halt and expiry paths are provided."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The wedge, protected purpose, allocation redesign, incidence review, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback logic closely instantiate the archetype without collapsing it into deregulation or capacity expansion."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal reflects slot-series precedence, scheduling seasons, declared movement capacity, airline-network reliability, essential connectivity, environmental constraints, and aviation authority roles, though airport-specific institutional details remain unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Earlier surrender and greater contestability could connect weakly used slots with qualified demand while holding capacity fixed. Strategic withholding, network interdependence, and adjacent-period displacement remain credible limiting pathways."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every relevant component is operationalized in domain terms, and the price diagnostic is appropriately used to exclude a price-based explanation rather than force an incompatible intervention."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies strong counterevidence, an analogy boundary, distinct falsifiers, strategic behavior, concentration, connectivity, legal, environmental, and displacement risks, together with observable monitoring signals."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes airport congestion from a generic capacity shortage into a testable distinction between a legitimate cap and a potentially stale allocation rule, while recognizing that the hypothesis may fail."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The retrospective review, shadow allocation, voluntary exchanges, bounded slot bands, seasonal expiry, and measurable outcomes support a feasible test. Local eligibility rules and halt thresholds still require calibration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible and tightly bounded test offers meaningful information and possible utilization gains while containing operational and legal exposure. Remaining risks are material but explicitly guarded and monitored."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet provides no evidence that the proposed slot pool, allocation criteria, or pilot design is novel."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The existence and magnitude of the proposed allocation wedge have not been established for a particular airport.","repair":"Collect season-level slot allocation, operation, return, cancellation, qualified-request, reliability, and protected-outcome records and test the stated problem falsifier before authorizing operational reassignment.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural plausibility only; all airport-specific empirical claims remain hypotheses."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The legal treatment of incumbent slot interests and the competent body's authority to operate the proposed pool remain unresolved.","repair":"Obtain jurisdiction-specific authority and due-process analysis, then restrict the experiment to shadow or voluntary operation unless lawful reallocation authority is confirmed.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate names the required authority review but supplies no jurisdiction, governing instrument, or legal finding."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No novelty comparison has been performed.","repair":"Compare the proposed exchange, surrender, scoring, and sunset features with existing slot-coordination practices and documented reform pilots before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The classification expressly records prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the 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 is structurally strong, domain-grounded, causally testable, and appropriately bounded for safety and authority. It merits deep research because its airport-specific empirical premise, local legal authority, and novelty remain unverified rather than because of a structural defect."}