{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__cultural_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"4fe006bb68ec24af7afb1c57f3a09cb9c93074a57d11e53ff14ec6350bfb9c1e","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable repository-governance problem: heterogeneous holdings receive blanket restrictions that may block legitimate uses despite materially different risk profiles."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback structure without treating all cultural restrictions as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk-tiered classification and standardized conditional paths directly alter the coarse permission rule alleged to cause categorical denial and avoidable delay; the audit distinguishes this lever from mere processing acceleration."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is comprehensive, identifies the price diagnostic as inapplicable, assigns coherent roles to selected mechanisms, and supplies counterfactual-removal explanations for load-bearing choices."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, no citations or observed effects are fabricated, and the proposed audit is tasked with establishing whether the relevant blocked class exists."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a separable class of mutually acceptable uses is actually blocked, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether tiering improves legitimate access without exceeding harm and burden tolerances."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Repository authority is bounded by legal, contractual, ethical, and source-community authority; prohibited actions, consent-sensitive suspension, containment, expiry, and rollback are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates avoidable-wedge reduction while preserving protected purposes, incidence analysis, reversibility, and rebound monitoring."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The design treats cultural access as contested governance involving representation, collective harm, source-community authority, unequal institutional capacity, and extractive reuse rather than as ordinary exchange."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The permission-rule lever plausibly affects denials, uncertainty, and delay, but its effect depends on the audit finding a meaningful low-risk class and on tiering not recreating discretion through escalation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All archetype components are translated, adapted, or explicitly ruled inapplicable, with culturally appropriate nonmonetary value and harm measures."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate names strong contrary evidence, the analogy boundary, rival explanations, strategic responses, distributional failure modes, and separate failure conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes a polarized open-versus-closed access dispute into a testable decomposition of avoidable categorical restriction and legitimate item-specific protection."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The audit, bounded opt-in pilot, baseline, outcome families, automatic expiry, and rollback make testing feasible, though local tolerance thresholds and classification reliability procedures remain to be fixed by competent authorities."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible design offers meaningful access benefits with strong safeguards, but cultural and representational harms may be collective or difficult to reverse after copying or reuse."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports unsearched prior art and makes no supported novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing archival access, tiered-permission, and community-governance practices is unevidenced.","repair":"During deep research, compare the combined wedge diagnosis, authority allocation, risk-tier workflow, and reversible evaluation design against documented archival practices before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet marks prior art as unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred from internal coherence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original submission with no prior candidate or registered repair to compare; the remaining limitation is evidentiary rather than a demonstrated conceptual or operational regression."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate survives every reject-first gate and provides a culturally faithful, causally specific, reversible transfer. Its substantive success does not establish novelty, which remains an explicit deep-research question."}