{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__education_pedagogy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"bd9a88fb685cdc32a49b9a592671897a0257bd7368c069578704c0b84b0646e0","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The prerequisite problem is independently specified through observable denials, demonstrated competencies, consequential delay, and usable capacity; it does not depend on the source analogy for its existence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The completion-only eligibility proxy maps cleanly to an avoidable wedge, while readiness and equitable administration remain protected purposes rather than being mislabeled as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed exception directly changes the binding eligibility rule, and the chain distinguishes this lever from faster processing of discretionary waivers. Assessment validity and coincident capacity remain explicit empirical contingencies."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate translates the applicable components, identifies adaptations and incompatibilities, supplies counterfactual-removal tests, and preserves substantive competency review while bounding implementation and rollback."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness, blocked demand, usable vacancies, and adverse responses are labeled as hypotheses. The candidate claims neither established effectiveness nor novelty and specifies the observations needed to resolve uncertainty."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed population and loss exist, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether the exception improves access without unacceptable learning, equity, safety, or workload effects."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority, faculty control of competencies, accessibility and equity review, informed participation, excluded actions, halt conditions, participant support, and reversion authority are explicitly bounded."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's full structure: a specific avoidable eligibility wedge, protected purposes, incidence analysis, bounded redesign, behavioral monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Readiness, cumulative preparation, learning outcomes, instructional workload, accessibility, equity, accommodations, and institutional curriculum authority are treated as substantive educational constraints."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"An alternative competency signal can plausibly remove a completion-proxy barrier, but validity of the assessment and overlap between qualified demand and usable capacity require prospective confirmation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Applicable components receive concrete domain realizations, adaptations remain functionally faithful, and price-based components are rejected for principled domain reasons."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts tacit preparation, reserved vacancies, coaching advantage, assessment barriers, displaced workload, congestion, stigma, and persistence by inertia with corresponding tests or safeguards."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing separates required competence from transcript completion and reveals a testable allocation loss without reducing education to market exchange."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded course-level pilot with published criteria, comparison outcomes, subgroup monitoring, expiry, and halt rules is executable, though assessment design and acceptable margins still need operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Limiting eligibility to otherwise-usable capacity and retaining readiness standards creates a favorable reversible test, while learner harm, inequity, and shifted staff burden remain material monitored risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status 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 competency assessment and comparison margins are conceptually identified but not yet operationally validated.","repair":"Before authorization, publish the competency blueprint, accessibility validation, assessor reliability procedure, vacancy rule, comparison design, uncertainty margin, and halt thresholds.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports a testable structural transfer, not a claim that the assessment will capture cumulative or tacit preparation."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty evidence is supplied.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of challenge examinations, prerequisite waivers, competency-based placement, and equivalent-prerequisite policies before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty is neither required for the bounded pilot nor inferable from the closed-book packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repairs, problem change, or causal-lever change to which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-sensitive, falsifiable transfer with explicit evidence boundaries and reversible safeguards. Its main unresolved questions concern local empirical validity and prior art rather than conceptual fit."}