{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__behavioral_economics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"00bd7f06370f033e82fac60b43e60e6a68f24ea66cd4e00264c68140cf883b99","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The library problem is specified independently through actors, observable outcomes, an institutional objective, a baseline, and a rival explanation rather than being defined by resemblance to the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Accumulating fines are treated as a potentially avoidable wedge blocking return and renewed borrowing, while timely recirculation, replacement recovery, and waiting-patron access remain protected constraints."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal states a coherent and testable chain from accumulating loss and suspension through avoidance to delayed return and disengagement, then targets that chain by removing daily accrual while retaining accountability."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All required components receive domain-specific realizations, and selected mechanisms have explicit causal, operational, safety, or test-design roles with counterfactual-removal explanations."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical behavioral claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, uncertainty is acknowledged, and no unsupported citation or fabricated finding is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the fee-induced problem account and the proposed redesign, distinguishes a reminder-only rival, and specifies observable failure and harm conditions."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to the appropriate library governance body subject to law and revenue constraints, the first step is bounded, protected materials and liabilities are excluded, and prospective rollback rules are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence, redesign, monitoring, and reversibility structure closely matches the archetype without collapsing legitimate scarcity protection into inefficiency."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Loss coding, avoidance, present bias, limited attention, strategic response, heterogeneous incidence, and a behavioral rival are integrated into a recognizable behavioral-economics formulation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed pathway is plausible and explicitly conditional, but logistical barriers, selection into debt, and deterrence effects remain credible competing causes requiring the pilot to identify the dominant mechanism."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally translated into library-specific measurements, safeguards, boundaries, incidence categories, and decision rules."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates genuine rival explanations, third-party scarcity, strategic delay, spillovers, inequity, revenue effects, and correlation-versus-causation concerns with corresponding tests or safeguards."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal replaces a binary fine-abolition debate with a separable question about whether daily accrual adds return discipline or instead creates counterproductive avoidance while other accountability tools preserve access."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded expiring pilot, comparable units, measurable outcomes, subgroup review, predefined triggers, exclusions, and nonretroactive rollback make the intervention implementable and discriminating."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible scope and safeguards limit downside, but increased overdue duration, waiting costs, replacement expense, and revenue effects remain material uncertainties."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports prior art as unsearched and provides no evidence supporting a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair record, changed problem identifier, or changed causal-lever identifier against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and offers a structurally faithful, behaviorally grounded, bounded, and falsifiable test of whether daily fine accrual is counterproductive. Its principal unresolved weakness is the absence of prior-art or novelty evidence, which does not undermine the bounded causal test."}