{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__data_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"272b6778dac4ef3db7744e6f120f5cae7b3bc03acb0a87f9a080d773cca6040f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate states an independently recognizable data-science infrastructure problem: runnable workloads can remain queued while compatible, unprotected capacity is stranded by non-borrowable team allocations."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback structure without treating every reservation or capacity limit as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Revocable work-conserving borrowing directly changes the allocation rule posited to cause simultaneous idleness and waiting, while the diagnostic separates that cause from scarcity, incompatibility, maintenance, locality, and protected reservations."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, incompatibilities are explicitly identified, and the load-bearing diagnostic, allocation review, scheduler adaptation, assessment, safeguards, pilot, and sunset mechanisms have coherent and non-duplicative roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical statements are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and the proposal makes success conditional on workload-level measurement rather than presenting unsupported prevalence or effectiveness claims."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether quota ownership actually explains overlapping idle capacity and blocked demand, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether guarded borrowing improves outcomes without exceeding protected bounds."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to compute governance and operational control owners, security and data mandates retain vetoes, the pilot excludes sensitive capacity and permanent rollout, and explicit halt, restoration, and sunset provisions bound exposure."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates avoidable allocation loss while preserving legitimate constraints, incidence visibility, behavioral response analysis, reversibility, and rebound monitoring."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal reflects heterogeneous accelerators, workload compatibility, checkpointing, queueing, reservations, data locality, preemption costs, scheduler behavior, and institutional compute governance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed lever can recover capacity stranded specifically by quota ownership, but its effect remains conditional on sufficient overlap, safe preemption, scheduler compatibility, and the absence of other binding bottlenecks."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Archetype components are translated into concrete scheduler, governance, measurement, distributional, and rollback artifacts, with the inapplicable price component correctly rejected."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The record anticipates incompatible hardware, protected headroom, maintenance, low-value or non-checkpointable jobs, request inflation, capture, rebound, interruption loss, hidden security constraints, and unrepresentative pilots."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The framing moves beyond generic utilization optimization by distinguishing stranded value from protected reservations and by treating allocation incidence, legitimacy, and safeguards as part of the intervention."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded pool, eligible workload class, capacity cap, comparison groups, monitoring, halt rules, restoration path, and sunset make testing feasible, though estimand construction and decision thresholds still require operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot offers plausible throughput and delay benefits with contained exposure, but priority weighting, preemption loss, access concentration, and rare reliability or security effects retain material uncertainty."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The record explicitly reports unsearched prior art and supplies no evidence that the scheduler or governance composition is novel."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal evaluation names comparison periods and unaffected pools but does not define matching variables, contamination controls, or the estimand for completed priority-weighted work.","repair":"Before execution, preregister workload eligibility, matching or adjustment variables, exposure assignment, outcome windows, spillover handling, and the decision rule for attributing changes to borrowing.","evidence_boundary":"This is an operational specification gap, not evidence that the proposed causal relationship is false."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Several halt and success conditions rely on terms such as meaningful overlap, material improvement, accepted harm, and approved concentration without operational definitions.","repair":"Have the authorized governance body predeclare measurable thresholds and observation windows for access, interruption, reliability, security, concentration, and completed-work outcomes.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate establishes the relevant outcome classes and authority structure but does not supply locally validated threshold values."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty determination can be made from the closed-book packet.","repair":"Treat novelty as unresolved until an authorized prior-art review compares the composition with existing fair-share, quota-borrowing, backfill, and work-conserving scheduling practices.","evidence_boundary":"Absence of novelty evidence is not evidence of novelty or duplication."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifiers, no claimed identifier changes, and no registered repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-specific, falsifiable, and safely bounded translation whose main remaining uncertainties are empirical effect size, locally authorized thresholds, and unsearched novelty."}