{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__computer_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"1cd101debf73e2920130ffee7f739fa6b82ee75958ddf52a39fc78d588b47832","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines a concrete scheduler-allocation problem through observable coexistence of quota-blocked jobs and dispatchable idle capacity; the problem remains intelligible without relying on the source analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Static non-transferable reservations instantiate a value-blocking allocation wedge, while idle compatible capacity, queued work, protected reservation purposes, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback correspond directly to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Revocable borrowing acts on the identified allocation constraint rather than merely adding capacity or measuring utilization. The chain predicts lower quota-attributable waiting only when compatible dispatchable capacity is genuinely stranded."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is comprehensive, price-specific elements are omitted with justification, and the selected diagnostic, allocation-review, assessment, incidence, and pilot mechanisms retain distinct and causally coherent roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical statements are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is explicitly unsearched, no measured benefit is claimed, and the candidate identifies the traces needed to resolve its central uncertainty."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether recoverable allocation-induced idleness exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether borrowing improves waiting without violating safeguards."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned across platform, reliability, security, and repository owners; the pilot is consent-based and security-bounded, preserves existing gates, excludes production deployment work, and has explicit halt and reversion conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's complete logic: isolate an avoidable wedge, retain legitimate protections, expose incidence, apply a matched redesign, and monitor rebound and harm."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Runner heterogeneity, scheduler admission, tenant reservations, reclaim costs, headroom, cache effects, security boundaries, queue metrics, and operational failure modes are represented with strong software-systems fidelity."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed scheduler change can release jobs blocked solely by non-transferable reservations, but the magnitude depends on unmeasured overlap duration, compatibility, reclaim cost, and genuine pool saturation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Each relevant component has a specific domain realization, and adaptations preserve function rather than merely renaming source concepts."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts genuine scarcity, incompatible runners, productive redundancy, preemption waste, gaming, demand rebound, distributional harm, measurement bias, and the autoscaling rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes some CI congestion as an allocation-rights problem rather than automatic evidence of insufficient compute, while remaining conditional on trace evidence."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded scheduler experiment, matched baseline, telemetry, expiry, and rollback are implementable, though guardrail thresholds and attribution methods still require preregistration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible scope and preserved floors limit exposure while allowing meaningful latency gains, but isolation, scheduler-complexity, and reclaim-instability risks remain consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":85.0,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The central prevalence and effect-size claims remain empirically unresolved.","repair":"Audit synchronized scheduler traces, preregister dispatchability and headroom rules, and set tenant-level guardrails before enabling the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural and causal testability, not the existence of material recoverable capacity or a beneficial measured effect."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing CI scheduling and quota-borrowing designs is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a targeted prior-art review and identify which combination of revocability, protected floors, compatibility constraints, and incidence monitoring is already established.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate expressly reports unsearched prior art and makes no novelty claim."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, and no registered repairs were available to address or supersede."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, reversible adaptation whose main causal uncertainty is explicitly testable. It clears the reject-first gates and success conditions, while empirical magnitude and novelty remain appropriate targets for deeper research rather than grounds for structural rejection."}