{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__communication_media_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"98aaeb6f0efa7932786c6814f9da5941da1eae3cb4b2985bbb92f21094a673a4","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines a domain-specific allocation problem independently: safely usable press positions may remain vacant while qualified journalists are denied access."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Legacy reservations form a specific allocation wedge, unused positions instantiate idle capacity, denied reporting is the blocked activity, and the redesign preserves the legitimate capacity boundary."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Confirmation and reassignment directly target the hypothesized binding allocation rule, while the preliminary audit prevents deployment if scarcity, screening, or operational buffers instead explain exclusion."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map preserves safeguards, incidence, behavioral response, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback. Selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, causal, governance, and test-design roles, while incompatible price and process mechanisms are rejected coherently."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Material occurrence and benefit claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, uncertainty is retained, and the authorized first step is an audit rather than an unsupported rollout."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether reassignable vacancies and qualified denied demand coexist, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether reassignment improves utilization and original coverage without crossing protected thresholds."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies the responsible authority, retains security and accessibility constraints, requires viewpoint-neutral criteria and review, limits the pilot, excludes unauthorized transfers, and specifies halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates an avoidable allocation wedge within a legitimate capacity constraint and repairs the assignment rule rather than removing the constraint."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Press credential gatekeeping, outlet incumbency, viewpoint neutrality, reporting diversity, source access, and audience coverage are rendered in communication and media terms."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The reassignment chain is coherent and directly testable, but its binding empirical conjunction remains unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Required components are translated into concrete credentialing artifacts, measures, safeguards, decision rules, and review procedures, with the nonprice diagnostic omission justified."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses genuine scarcity, protected operational buffers, deadline gaming, concentration, workload, discrimination, metric distortion, and pilot representativeness."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes apparent press-access scarcity as a potentially stale allocation problem while preserving the distinction from processing friction, pricing, and indiscriminate access expansion."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A retrospective audit and bounded event pilot provide observable baselines, eligibility boundaries, outcome measures, thresholds, expiry, and rollback."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is reversible and preserves high-value protections, though benefits depend on vacancy prevalence and administrative or distributional harms could offset recovered coverage."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"No prior-art search, comparative implementation evidence, or other novelty evidence is supplied, and the candidate correctly marks that status as unsearched."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal supplies no evidence that the intervention or its particular combination of confirmation deadlines, neutral waitlisting, and protected-cap reassignment is novel relative to existing credentialing practice.","repair":"Before making a novelty claim, compare the design with documented press-credential allocation policies and pilots, while preserving the current unsearched label until that review is complete.","evidence_boundary":"This limitation affects novelty evidence, not the internally specified structural fit or the validity of the proposed audit and pilot."}],"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 presents a strong, domain-faithful allocation-wedge adaptation with explicit empirical boundaries, distinct falsifiers, protected-purpose safeguards, and a reversible test path. Its principal weakness is the disclosed absence of novelty evidence."}