{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__engineering_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"60cab0c04c28dc1b2101292e3580d9b23ab1619a9c7b3f5a08c4249b625e24db","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The facility-allocation problem is independently observable through queues, usable idle capacity, cancellations, lead times, and controlled booking-log analysis rather than being defined solely by archetype terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate maps a specific allocation wedge, blocked validation activity, protected constraints, incidence, a matched redesign lever, and a bounded learning loop without collapsing genuine scarcity into distortion."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Scarcity-weighted credits and cancellation release can plausibly induce flexible demand to retime, while the proposed controls distinguish this mechanism from shortages, staffing limits, setup dependencies, and fixed entitlements."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain translations, the load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, supporting mechanisms remain subordinate, and rejected mechanisms are separated by diagnosis."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical premises are consistently bounded as hypotheses, uncertainty and confounding are explicit, and no unsupported prior-art or effectiveness claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether booking rules explain the mismatch after controlling for operational constraints, while the intervention falsifier separately tests retiming, lead-time, access, burden, gaming, quality, and safety outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to facility scheduling, mandatory validation remains outside pilot discretion, affected governance functions are included, excluded actions are explicit, and rollback conditions protect safety, access, workload, and test quality."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The wedge, foregone value, protected purpose, incidence, matched redesign, monitoring, and reversibility closely reproduce the archetype structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in realistic engineering-validation constraints including fixtures, staffing, maintenance, operating envelopes, mandatory coverage, quality ownership, and non-substitutable test time."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The retiming mechanism is coherent but depends on usable slack, forecastable scarcity, flexible demand, and credit allocations that approximate legitimate priority rather than organizational power."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component has a concrete facility-level realization, including safeguards, incidence, sensitivity analysis, compensation, authority, monitoring, and expiry."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses shortage, compatibility, staffing, milestone correlation, strategic booking, rebound, hierarchy, maintenance erosion, and alternative explanations."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes scheduling delay as a potentially avoidable allocation wedge while retaining the possibility that physical or organizational constraints are actually binding."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The staged record analysis, shadow simulation, bounded pilot, matched baseline, guardrails, observable outcomes, and automatic reversion form an executable test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is reversible and operationally bounded, though credit design could concentrate access or transfer burdens to operators if safeguards are poorly calibrated."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet supplies no evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Internal credits may measure allocated organizational influence rather than validation value or urgency.","repair":"Before live activation, predefine credit-allocation principles, protected priority rules, access-concentration bounds, and an audit for correlation between program power and effective access.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a testable mechanism but provides no observed evidence that the proposed credit budgets are neutral or incentive-compatible."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Nominal off-peak availability may not be usable for the delayed requests because of fixtures, staffing, sequencing, or setup dependencies.","repair":"Construct request-slot compatibility sets and estimate usable slack after operational exclusions before interpreting utilization as recoverable capacity.","evidence_boundary":"Usable slack and retiming feasibility remain hypotheses pending controlled booking and operations data."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty determination can be made from the closed-book packet.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of internal capacity markets, laboratory scheduling credits, congestion pricing, and engineering test-facility allocation before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"The declared prior-art status is unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, so no improvement relative to an earlier candidate can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-specific, causally testable, adversarially aware, and safely bounded. Its empirical premises remain hypotheses suitable for the proposed staged test, while novelty remains wholly unevidenced."}