{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__geoengineering_planetary_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"626d4d042bffd88b17fc3804c26eba962bffbf2e8af5ab96516fcd7c3e0990ef","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The coarse experiment-approval problem is independently recognizable through duplicated submissions, serial review, indeterminate timelines, and abandoned proposals without relying on the source analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps a specific avoidable approval wedge, blocked evidence generation, protected oversight purposes, a matched process redesign, incidence review, monitoring, and rollback."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes the hypothesized source of loss through consolidated intake, parallel review, conservative risk tiers, and escalation, while the audit and shadow comparison can distinguish this mechanism from necessary substantive review."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core and safeguard components are translated coherently; incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, selected mechanisms have explicit roles and removal counterfactuals, and supporting mechanisms do not substitute for the causal intervention."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical uncertainty is consistently bounded as hypothesis or inference, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and the candidate does not present unverified process conditions or intervention effects as established facts."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The process audit can falsify the proposed problem independently, while the shadow or authorized pilot can separately falsify the intervention through timing, rework, safeguard, classification, participation, gaming, and exposure outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with duly empowered bodies; statutory, treaty, consultation, consent, notification, and independent stop powers are preserved, and the authorized first step entails no environmental release."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's central distinction between avoidable distortion and legitimate protection and carries it through diagnosis, redesign, incidence, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal treats geoengineering as transboundary, rights-sensitive, scientifically uncertain, potentially cumulative, and legitimacy-constrained rather than as an ordinary permitting context."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The lever is well matched to procedural drag and has a credible pathway to reduced delay, but its effect remains conditional on showing that redundant procedure rather than substantive review is materially binding."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is comprehensive, domain-specific, and candid about adaptation and incompatibility, with especially strong authority, participation, cumulative-risk, and reversibility translations."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts the strongest alternative explanation, analogy limits, tier instability, proposal splitting, cumulative exposure, capture, and degraded participation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing usefully separates the amount and sequencing of oversight from the protected purposes of oversight, creating a testable middle path between blanket acceleration and blanket preservation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A retrospective shadow review provides a bounded first test with predeclared comparisons, no release, explicit halt conditions, and a clear route to later authorization only if warranted."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The no-release first step offers meaningful informational value at limited direct planetary risk, although classification errors, legitimacy costs, and downstream normalization of expedited review remain important concerns."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports prior art as unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The binding prevalence and magnitude of avoidable procedural drag remain unestablished.","repair":"Execute the predeclared process audit and shadow comparison before considering a live pathway.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate appropriately treats the approval wedge and baseline as hypotheses pending process data."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty is unsupported because relevant prior art has not been searched.","repair":"Conduct a documented review of geoengineering research-governance pilots, tiered environmental review, and analogous bounded-experiment approval systems.","evidence_boundary":"No conclusion about novelty or absence of precedent is justified from the closed-book packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original record with no prior repair cycle; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier is reported as changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-sensitive, causally testable transfer with unusually strong authority and safety boundaries. Its empirical premise remains conditional and novelty is unevidenced, but those limitations are explicitly bounded and do not compromise the proposed no-release first test."}