{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__history_historiography","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"0fb401219f8eac4c010134ffe46acb3eb3da360aebc497c15eeae9bb3634b5a6","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently intelligible archival-governance problem: coarse restrictions may unnecessarily block bounded low-risk research while consuming review capacity."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback structure without treating every access restriction as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk tiering, reusable determinations, and streamlined routing directly target coarse allocation and redundant approval burdens; the candidate also states when transaction-cost or genuine-scarcity explanations would supersede this account."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core and safeguard components are translated coherently, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, selected mechanisms have explicit roles, and their counterfactual removal tests distinguish causal, operational, evaluative, and safety contributions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The existence and prevalence of the wedge are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, prior art is marked unsearched, no external evidence is invented, and an audit is required before accepting the diagnosis."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the asserted wedge exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the risk-tiered pathway improves access or effort without unacceptable harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is confined to authorized custodial governance, protected records and duties are excluded, the initial test is bounded, and serious disclosure, rights, conservation, or classification failures trigger suspension and independent review."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal instantiates the complete deadweight-loss pattern while preserving the distinction between avoidable process burdens and legitimate archival protection."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation engages archival custody, donor terms, privacy, represented communities, conservation, evidentiary breadth, researcher inequality, and historiographical contestability in domain-specific terms."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed pathway plausibly reduces delay caused by coarse rules and repeated checks, but its effect depends on the unverified prevalence and classifiability of genuinely low-risk requests."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every relevant component receives an operational archival realization, while the price diagnostic is correctly identified as inapplicable rather than forced into the domain."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses rival explanations, irreversible third-party harm, gaming, workload displacement, unequal capture, classification error, selection bias, and authority limits with explicit failure conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal usefully reframes archival-access conflict as a separable mixture of protective review and avoidable allocation burden, though this gain remains conditional on the diagnostic audit."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded comparison, observable outcomes, baseline, matched requests, sunset, and rollback path make the conjecture testable, but decision thresholds and the matching procedure remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible low-sensitivity pilot offers meaningful learning and possible access gains while containing exposure, although privacy and community harms may remain irreversible in individual cases."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet provides no evidence that the intervention or framing is novel."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The prevalence and causal importance of the asserted archival wedge remain empirically unestablished.","repair":"Conduct the proposed intake audit and stratify delays and denials by substantive protection, redundant process, capacity scarcity, request risk, and abandonment outcome before deployment.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports a testable structural conjecture only; it does not establish that avoidable restrictions are common in any archive."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot names harm thresholds and matched ordinary requests without specifying their prospective definitions or matching rules.","repair":"Pre-register outcome definitions, comparison-case selection, inequity measures, serious-incident criteria, and automatic suspension conditions with affected-party review.","evidence_boundary":"Operational feasibility is plausible from the design, but unbiased attribution and acceptable risk boundaries are not yet demonstrated."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No prior-art evidence supports a novelty claim.","repair":"Search archival-access governance, risk-tiered research access, ethics review streamlining, and controlled-access pilot literature before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty cannot be inferred from the closed-book packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; remaining uncertainty is not attributable to a revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-specific, falsifiable, and authority-bounded transfer. Its empirical diagnosis and novelty remain unverified, but those claims are honestly bounded and can be tested through the proposed audit and reversible pilot."}