{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__cognitive_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"aa398928fe7c1c2c295f74ed504adc6efdf186fba79f13113183ef96a5f9eb96","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate states an independently recognizable cognitive-research problem: coarse eligibility rules may exclude willing, functionally qualified participants and narrow evidential coverage."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The eligibility gate maps cleanly to a value-blocking wedge, preserves legitimate protective purposes, identifies blocked participation and coverage, and proposes a bounded rule redesign."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Task-specific screening and accommodations directly act on the posited eligibility wedge, with the causal claim appropriately conditional on coarse exclusion rather than recruitment scarcity being binding."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core components are translated coherently, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and the selected diagnostic, allocation-review, assessment, incidence, and pilot mechanisms retain distinct functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical propositions are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, no unsupported validation or prior-art claim is made, and uncertainty about the prevalence and removability of the wedge is explicit."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes justified exclusions and rival recruitment constraints, while the intervention falsifier separately tests gains and safeguard failures in the bounded pilot."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Ethics authority remains controlling, protected actions are explicitly excluded, the first step is limited to audit and approved piloting, and halt and rollback conditions cover safety, consent, validity, burden, and equity."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's central tension between recoverable blocked value and legitimate protection, with incidence, uncertainty, monitoring, and reversibility built into the redesign."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Consent, construct validity, accommodations, estimand definition, ethics review, recruitment, and population coverage are treated as domain-specific constraints rather than generic market analogues."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from coarse exclusion through functional assessment to additional valid participation is plausible, but depends on whether screening can reliably identify candidates without compromising safety or measurement."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly all relevant components receive operational domain realizations, while the price-specific diagnostic is transparently marked incompatible rather than forced into the transfer."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate survives strong challenges concerning legitimate exclusions, noninterchangeability, recruitment scarcity, construct alteration, and ethics, though empirical prevalence of avoidable exclusions remains unresolved."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer reframes blanket eligibility as a potentially overbroad allocation wedge while preventing efficiency language from overriding consent, validity, or participant welfare."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A protocol audit and bounded ethics-approved amendment are executable and measurable, but operational definitions for comprehension, validity, burden, and subgroup thresholds still require protocol-specific specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The scoped, reversible design limits exposure and could improve inclusion and evidence, while residual risks from individualized screening, accommodation effects, privacy, and oversight burden remain material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes that the proposed framing or intervention is novel."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The prevalence and practical importance of overbroad exclusions are not empirically established in the packet.","repair":"Before broader adoption, audit protocol exclusions and rejected applicants to determine whether eligibility is actually binding and whether task-level reassessment identifies a meaningful qualifying group.","evidence_boundary":"The current record supports a well-bounded hypothesis and test design, not a claim that avoidable exclusion is common or consequential across cognitive research."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Pilot thresholds are named by outcome class but not operationalized for a particular task.","repair":"For the selected protocol, preregister measurement procedures, comparison margins, subgroup analyses, missing-data handling, and authority-owned pause criteria before enrollment.","evidence_boundary":"Exact thresholds cannot be inferred closed-book because they depend on the task, population, instruments, and ethics determination."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and prior-art status remain unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded review of ethics guidance, inclusive-research practices, functional eligibility screening, accommodation protocols, and comparable study amendments before making a novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly reports unsearched prior art, so novelty must remain unevidenced."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs or revisions to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally testable, and ethically bounded. Its main unresolved issue is evidentiary rather than conceptual: the prevalence, effect size, protocol thresholds, and novelty of the proposed eligibility redesign require research."}