{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__disaster_management","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"140c6759959084ed0c7315002265bcedcccabac1efe7ec322be82b933d065a09","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The post-disaster approval problem is independently specified through actors, observable workflow conditions, consequences, an ordinary baseline, and a capacity-based rival explanation."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps a procedural wedge, blocked safe reoccupation, protected hazard review, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback directly onto the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed workflow changes act on identified routing, duplication, and sequencing delays, while the causal chain distinguishes process distortion from true inspector scarcity and downstream repair constraints."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core and safeguard components are translated coherently; selected mechanisms have distinct roles and counterfactual-removal tests, while irrelevant price, matching, and allocation mechanisms are rejected with reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical assertions are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, observables are not presented as established facts, and effect size, prevalence, thresholds, and prior art are acknowledged as unestablished."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers distinguish absence of a procedural wedge from failure of the risk-tiered workflow after that wedge is confirmed."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded to legally empowered local officials, substantive protections and appeal rights are excluded from waiver, the first step is scoped, and attributable harm or unreliable data triggers reversion."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's full logic of diagnosing an avoidable wedge, protecting legitimate constraints, reviewing incidence, testing a bounded redesign, and monitoring new harms."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in post-disaster repair, displacement, shelter demand, latent hazards, inspection capacity, reoccupation, and relevant public authorities."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanism from reduced procedural drag to earlier safe reoccupation is credible and rival-aware, but its binding importance and end-to-end effect remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every relevant component receives an operational domain realization, and the omitted price diagnostic is appropriately treated as a negative diagnostic rather than forced into the design."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies latent-damage classification failure, strategic behavior, inequitable access, bottleneck migration, non-generalizability, and a strong capacity-based rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It reframes recovery delay as a potentially separable procedural wedge rather than undifferentiated post-disaster overload, while retaining the possibility that genuine scarcity dominates."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded file audit and prospective pilot with comparison cases, outcome measures, expiry, escalation, and rollback are feasible, though local thresholds and legal workflow details remain unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Recovered housing-days and reviewer capacity could be valuable, and containment limits downside, but latent hazards and unequal access make the pilot materially safety-sensitive."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports unsearched prior art and supplies no comparative evidence that the composition is novel."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposal does not yet establish that procedural delay is material relative to necessary inspection, engineering, repair readiness, utilities, finance, or qualified-inspector scarcity.","repair":"Use the authorized file audit to decompose end-to-end vacancy time and proceed to the pilot only if avoidable workflow time is a meaningful, addressable contributor.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports a well-bounded hypothesis and test design, not empirical prevalence or effect magnitude."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Eligibility, safety, equity, and rollback thresholds are conceptually specified but not locally operationalized.","repair":"Pre-register classification rules, non-inferiority outcomes, audit requirements, escalation conditions, and authority sign-off before enrolling cases.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values require jurisdiction-specific legal, hazard, baseline, and capacity data."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No evidence supports a novelty claim.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of emergency permitting, rapid-repair pathways, and post-disaster inspection triage before representing the composition as novel.","evidence_boundary":"The current record explicitly labels prior art as unsearched."}],"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 passes every reject-first gate and is ready for bounded empirical investigation. Its strongest features are faithful wedge diagnosis, preservation of substantive safety review, explicit rival explanations, separate falsifiers, and reversible implementation. The central unresolved question is empirical: whether avoidable approval workflow delay materially constrains safe reoccupation in the target setting."}