{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__ethnography_qualitative_methods","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3bb0d2f6f86c5e9c799bf5b7ef4fc8648dc30b4c4f5ad8b6e99e5f5bb8803242","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The domain problem is independently intelligible: disproportionate review requirements may delay, degrade, or prevent ethically permissible qualitative inquiry regardless of the archetype framing."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a specific classification and approval wedge, blocked inquiry, legitimate protections, affected parties, a matched redesign, and bounded monitoring."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk-tiered eligibility and a qualitative-specific review path directly alter the hypothesized source of avoidable delay, while the controlled comparison can distinguish that effect from ordinary administration."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core components are translated coherently, protective and incidence mechanisms remain load-bearing, and price, quota, matching, and underlying-regime sunset mechanisms are rejected for stated structural reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, consequences, intervention effects, and prior art are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, inferences, or unsearched claims; no unsupported validation claim is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate falsifiers distinguish failure of the wedge diagnosis from failure or harm of the proposed review path, with observable outcomes and credible rival explanations."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is assigned to the authorized ethics body, higher-risk cases and safeguard waivers are excluded, and suspension, escalation, and reversion conditions constrain the pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining tension between recovering blocked value and maintaining legitimate protections, incidence review, reversibility, and rebound monitoring."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation recognizes consent, privacy, power, participant agency, collective harm, methodological fit, community interests, and the limits of treating ethical review as ordinary exchange."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The lever plausibly changes classification-driven delay and method distortion, but reviewer scarcity, submission quality, and risk misclassification remain serious competing explanations."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Applicable components receive concrete domain realizations, adaptations preserve their functions, and the incompatible price diagnostic is correctly excluded."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts necessary scrutiny, scarce capacity, incomplete submissions, non-compensable harm, threshold gaming, delayed harm, authority limits, and the nearest neighboring archetype."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The framing improves on generic faster review by separating avoidable classification demands from substantive protection and making blocked knowledge, incidence, and protection equivalence jointly reviewable."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded comparative pilot, baseline, measures, exclusions, halt conditions, and renewal rule are supplied, though independent risk classification and harm thresholds still require operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Scope limits, substantive safeguards, escalation, monitoring, and automatic reversion contain risk, but rare, collective, and delayed harms may remain difficult to detect during a limited pilot."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty is neither established nor inferred."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The independent low-risk classification and protection-equivalence standard are not yet operationally defined.","repair":"Before implementation, specify the qualitative risk taxonomy, blinded eligibility procedure, adjudication process, safeguard-equivalence criteria, and preset harm and complaint boundaries.","evidence_boundary":"The packet proposes these controls but supplies no validated classifier, threshold calibration, or empirical protection baseline."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and empirical prevalence remain unknown.","repair":"Conduct prior-art review and collect baseline evidence on requirement mismatch, review delay, field-window loss, method changes, abandonment, complaints, and harms before interpreting pilot value.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly labels prior art as unsearched and the prevalence and consequence claims as hypotheses."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no predecessor repairs, and no prior candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally coherent, domain-sensitive, falsifiable, and safely bounded. Its main unresolved questions are empirical rather than conceptual: the risk classifier, protection-equivalence thresholds, baseline prevalence, effect magnitude, delayed harms, and novelty require research before institutional adoption."}