{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__economics_finance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"43822595f6f47667fa266a965af420de3227cb80388da8325202496f8df8aa2e","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The curb-parking allocation problem is independently specified through observable saturation, search delay, and substitutable slack rather than being inferred merely from the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Uniform pricing is mapped to a time-and-location allocation wedge, blocked access and stranded capacity are identified, legitimate protections are preserved, and the redesign directly targets the stated distortion."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Bounded scarcity-responsive pricing can induce retiming, relocation, and mode substitution, thereby reducing queue rationing when price mismatch rather than raw undersupply is binding."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, while selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, causal, evaluative, safeguarding, and reversible-testing roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, uncertainty is acknowledged, and the candidate does not invent baseline findings, treatment effects, or prior-art support."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers distinguish misdiagnosis of the wedge from failure or harm of the proposed pricing treatment."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies lawful municipal authority, requires notice and accommodation review, bounds exposure, excludes unsafe actions, and supplies suspension and reversion conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate instantiates the full deadweight-loss pattern while preserving protected purposes and incidence constraints."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The diagnosis, welfare framing, elasticity assumptions, transfers, congestion effects, and allocation response are native to economics and municipal pricing practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The behavioral pathway is coherent and conditional on testable substitution and demand responses, but its binding assumptions remain empirically unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed archetype component receives a concrete parking-domain realization with appropriate adaptations."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate survives strong alternatives involving raw scarcity, poor substitutability, justified externality pricing, regressivity, spillovers, and measurement-induced surveillance by making them diagnostic or halt conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes parking scarcity from a simple capacity shortage into a potentially avoidable allocation wedge, though responsive parking pricing itself is conceptually familiar."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded pilot, baseline comparison, monitored outcomes, authority review, and rollback path make the proposal testable, although operational thresholds still require local specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible scope and safeguards create a favorable learning opportunity while retaining meaningful equity, spillover, legal, and administrative risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal does not establish whether its composition, safeguards, or evaluation design differs materially from existing responsive-parking programs.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison before asserting novelty or distinctive contribution.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet labels prior art as unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred from structural quality."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Local trigger thresholds and comparison-unit selection remain unspecified.","repair":"Predeclare measurable halt thresholds, comparable control blocks and periods, measurement methods, and decision rules before pilot authorization.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate identifies relevant outcomes and threshold categories but supplies no locally calibrated values."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, falsifiable, and safely bounded application of deadweight-loss reduction. Its principal limitation is absent novelty evidence, which does not undermine the internally bounded causal proposal."}