{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__film_media_production","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"a95b4b0ba9d5de9d67fda66f09ca9494040d3514e6e6a5b7d2459d8a07a64c67","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The stale hold-and-allocation rule is independently recognizable in production operations and is distinguished from generic scarcity, search failure, and approval delay."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps a value-blocking allocation wedge, blocked compatible use, protected scheduling purposes, incidence, a targeted redesign, and a bounded learning loop without collapsing the domain into the source archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Conditional readiness milestones and earlier release directly change control of stale reservations, enabling transparent reassignment of otherwise idle compatible windows while leaving the physical capacity limit unchanged."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is complete and internally coherent. Load-bearing diagnostic and allocation-review mechanisms are separated from supporting assessment, incidence, and pilot mechanisms, while unsuitable pricing, matching, and approval mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported observation or novelty claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a rule-created overlap exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether conditional release improves outcomes without breaching safeguards. The rival matching explanation and analogy limits are also explicit."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is bounded by contracts, collective agreements, safety governance, and access commitments. Firm and safety-cleared bookings are excluded, affected-party review precedes the pilot, and suspension and restoration conditions are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's full structure: avoidable wedge diagnosis, protected-purpose separation, incidence review, matched redesign, behavioral response, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses production-specific capacity, readiness, setup, continuity, labor, confidentiality, contractual priority, and downstream scheduling constraints in ways that materially shape the intervention."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Earlier release can plausibly convert stale reservations into completed use when compatible ready demand exists, but heterogeneous slots, difficult readiness verification, and mobilization constraints leave important empirical uncertainty."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete domain realization, and adaptations are appropriately identified where pricing or compensation concepts do not transfer literally."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate survives strong challenges concerning protective slack, genuine shortage, heterogeneous capacity, strategic readiness claims, distributional bias, downstream bottlenecks, and lost schedule certainty."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes apparent production-capacity scarcity as a potentially separable allocation-rights problem while preserving the possibility that observed idleness is necessary protective slack."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The audit, bounded capacity class, observable booking outcomes, comparison to baseline, expiry, and rollback make the proposal testable, though readiness criteria and threshold values still require local operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A scoped and reversible pilot offers meaningful utilization and delay benefits with contained exposure, while labor volatility, schedule disruption, gaming, and unequal mobilization capacity remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports prior art as unsearched and supplies no evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty is unestablished.","repair":"During deep research, compare the conditional-release design with existing studio, stage, edit-suite, equipment-rental, and production-booking practices before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet marks prior art as unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is available."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, and no prior repairs were supplied."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for deep research. Its strongest features are the precise separation of stale allocation from genuine scarcity, complete component translation, distinct falsifiers, and bounded authority and safety controls. The remaining evidence gap concerns novelty rather than structural quality or evidentiary honesty."}