{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__human_computer_interaction","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"27caf6fd84454cd92b8fcd038739a5154bca9a8d02f6d90f1f5102a8b38bc3c4","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorization problem is stated independently in domain terms, with identifiable actors, observable consequences, and an objective that does not depend on accepting the source analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Coarse role eligibility is mapped to a value-blocking allocation wedge, legitimate security protections are preserved, incidence is exposed, and the redesign is bounded and reversible."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Contextual action-level grants directly alter the posited categorical denial rule, while the baseline and nearest process rival distinguish allocation repair from faster ticket handling."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is substantially complete, price-specific components are explicitly rejected where inapplicable, and selected mechanisms retain their diagnostic, causal, safety, or test-design functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported result or authority claim is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have separate observable falsifiers, including rival explanations for denials and comparative failure or harm thresholds for the pilot."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority, affected parties, exclusions, telemetry limits, suspension triggers, revocation, evidence preservation, notification, and reversion are explicitly specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's wedge, protected-purpose, incidence, redesign, monitoring, and reversibility structure without collapsing into general usability improvement."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The problem is grounded in enterprise interfaces, authorization workflows, governed feature use, usability burdens, accessibility, and socio-technical stakeholders."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The lever can reduce categorical denials and displaced work, but its benefit depends on identifying a genuinely low-risk action class and excluding interface confusion, necessary review, and administrative scarcity."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every applicable component receives a concrete domain realization, while the inapplicable monetary diagnostic is transparently marked rather than forced."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses privilege aggregation, insider threats, gaming, unequal access, surveillance, workload transfer, rival causes, and the possibility that authorization is inseparable from protection."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating coarse roles as an allocation wedge usefully separates the security cap from assignment of action rights, though contextual authorization is already a recognizable access-control direction."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The expiring workflow-bounded pilot, baseline comparison, telemetry, and rollback logic are actionable, but the low-risk taxonomy and concrete trigger thresholds remain to be established before execution."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible design offers meaningful workflow gains with strong safeguards, while cumulative privilege, sensitive-data exposure, and monitoring harms remain material uncertainties."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":85.0,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The empirical diagnosis remains unvalidated: necessary review, interface confusion, or administrative scarcity could explain the observed denials and queues.","repair":"Before implementation, use de-identified traces to classify denial causes and demonstrate a bounded action class for which coarse eligibility is the binding constraint.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a falsifiable hypothesis and test plan, not observational evidence that the posited wedge is material."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing contextual, attribute-based, or just-in-time authorization approaches is not established.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and state whether the contribution is a new mechanism, a governance package, or an application-specific synthesis.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can judge structural merit but cannot infer novelty from an unsearched record."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repair to compare."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally discriminating, falsifiable, and safely bounded. Its main unresolved issues are empirical validation of the wedge and external evidence of novelty, neither of which is disguised as established fact."}