{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__gender_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"a87cc36143bfee29f19871d6d562ba6e3f1b05cdc2e5f73d32f7d0f017a7a95f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The institutional-access problem is coherent without the archetype: unnecessary legal-name propagation can independently cause disclosure, mismatch, correction burden, and deterred participation."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate maps a coarse identity-record rule to blocked participation, distinguishes necessary verification from avoidable propagation, and proposes a bounded redesign that preserves the protected purpose."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Field-specific identity separation directly targets the stated propagation rule, while confidential linkage and stable identifiers plausibly preserve continuity and verification."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Applicable components are translated with explicit domain realizations, the price-specific component is justifiably omitted, and selected mechanisms retain their essential diagnostic, operational, assessment, and pilot functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inference, the prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no fabricated findings or authorities are presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged unnecessary burden exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether field separation improves outcomes without unacceptable failures."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is institutionally bounded, affected-party and specialist review is specified, regulated records and public linkage are excluded, and serious harms trigger immediate suspension and restoration."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, less-distortive redesign, incidence review, monitoring, and reversibility form a complete archetypal correspondence."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal treats identity, disclosure, dignity, intersectional access, institutional power, and rights as domain-specific concerns rather than reducing them to monetary exchange."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed separation plausibly interrupts unnecessary propagation and correction burdens, but its access benefits and failure rates remain empirical hypotheses for the pilot."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is comprehensive, purpose-specific, and operationally connected to the field audit, configuration change, safeguards, evaluation, and rollback path."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates indispensable linkage, existing adequate separation, record fragmentation, impersonation, unequal access, workarounds, and scope creep, with corresponding tests or safeguards."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing usefully separates identity verification from ubiquitous identity display and converts a generalized inclusion dispute into an auditable field-purpose problem without erasing rights concerns."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A field audit and bounded opt-in pilot provide observable metrics, exclusions, expiry, and rollback, though local system architecture and legal requirements remain to be established."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible design offers plausible participation and administrative gains while containing disclosure, identification, reporting, and continuity risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and the candidate makes no supported novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The candidate provides no evidence about novelty or prior implementations.","repair":"During deep research, compare the field-purpose design, confidential linkage model, and pilot protocol against documented chosen-name and identity-record systems before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation supports structural quality only and cannot establish originality or external performance."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no claimed revision to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate through a strong protected-purpose split, faithful domain translation, distinct falsifiers, and bounded authority. External research is still needed for prior art and empirical calibration, but the disclosed uncertainty does not undermine the closed-book structural case."}