{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__criminology_forensic","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"bc171d1bd249c42b15fcf21ec027f181607841234dd02121435d40c1c6289c02","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The forensic testing-scope and queue problem is independently recognizable and explicitly distinguished from genuine laboratory scarcity."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps a value-blocking allocation wedge, protected purposes, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback with strong structural correspondence."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed intake, scope, approval, and allocation changes plausibly redirect analyst time toward earlier probative work, conditional on the audit confirming a removable wedge."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Required components are translated coherently, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual-removal tests."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, uncertainty is acknowledged, and no unsupported citation or fabricated result is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct observable falsifiers that separately test wedge existence and redesign performance."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded, approvals precede live intervention, high-risk cases and rights-compromising actions are excluded, and immediate suspension and evidence-preserving rollback are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's wedge diagnosis, protected-purpose constraint, incidence analysis, bounded redesign, monitoring, and reversibility."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The design treats forensic evidence as a due-process and scientific-validity substrate rather than an ordinary throughput commodity and protects defense access, disclosure, neutrality, and chain of custody."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Removing duplicated routing and repairing coarse allocation could reduce avoidable delay, but the effect depends on demonstrating that rule-induced work and waiting are material relative to genuine capacity scarcity."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every component receives a concrete forensic realization, while the incompatible price component is correctly rejected rather than forced into the domain."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal directly addresses unexpected exculpatory evidence, FIFO neutrality, scarcity confounding, priority gaming, queue displacement, and the limits of welfare analogies under coercive state power."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing usefully separates unavoidable scientific capacity limits from avoidable scope and allocation rules, though some diagnosed delay may still reduce to ordinary process friction."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A shadow audit, concurrent comparison, bounded eligibility, monitoring outcomes, and rollback make the design testable, but matching and disparity bounds still require operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible design offers meaningful delay reduction while containing severe evidentiary and rights risks, although even a contained missed finding could carry substantial harm."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supports no evidence-based novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The composition has no prior-art or novelty evidence.","repair":"Conduct domain-specific prior-art research on forensic triage, differential case processing, queue prioritization, and scope-limitation pilots before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet explicitly classifies prior art as unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred from presentation quality."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Several pilot decision bounds remain conceptually named rather than operationally fixed.","repair":"Pre-register case matching, material-finding definitions, disparity limits, queue-displacement limits, and renewal criteria under the responsible authorities.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies outcomes and halt categories but not the empirical calibration needed to judge the final bounds."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-sensitive, falsifiable, and authority-bounded translation. Its central empirical premise remains conditional on separating avoidable allocation and process wedges from genuine forensic capacity scarcity, and novelty remains unestablished."}