{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__information_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"46cf543d89b457c65cdeb688ea769295584a906cefb07efecddee2af92291780","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The communication-allocation problem is independently recognizable through idle feasible opportunities, blocked admissible traffic, and state-dependent channel conditions; it does not depend on economic terminology for its existence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate preserves the full correspondence among an avoidable allocation wedge, feasible blocked activity, legitimate constraints, incidence, bounded redesign, and monitoring."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Adaptive scheduling directly changes the coarse assignment rule identified as the source of stranded opportunities, while the frontier test distinguishes allocation loss from genuine capacity scarcity."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All required components are translated, the load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for domain-specific reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are marked as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, uncertainty is preserved, and no external validation or novelty is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The baseline-frontier test can falsify the diagnosed problem independently of the controlled comparison that can falsify the adaptive intervention."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to protocol governance, protected commitments remain invariant, live exposure is bounded, excluded actions are explicit, and threshold breaches trigger rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The mapping retains the archetype's wedge, protected purpose, blocked value, matched redesign, incidence, behavioral response, and reversibility structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal correctly distinguishes physical channel capacity from allocation inefficiency and uses channel state, queues, reliability, coding overhead, and shadow prices in domain-appropriate roles."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The scheduler can plausibly recover stranded feasible opportunities, but the realized benefit remains conditional on estimation quality, feedback stability, and control overhead."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component receives a concrete communication-system realization, including safeguards, compensation, authority, sensitivity analysis, and rollback."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts redundancy, guard time, fairness reservations, frontier optimality, gaming, oscillation, privacy leakage, and protected-flow starvation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing usefully separates hard information limits from avoidable allocation loss and makes distributional service effects visible, though adaptive resource allocation is already a familiar domain framing."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"Logged replay, capped live deployment, a fixed baseline, preregistered outcomes, unchanged constraints, bounded scope, and explicit halt conditions support a credible test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded reversible pilot offers meaningful informational value with controlled exposure, although feedback instability and hidden service degradation remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported within the closed-book record."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The packet establishes structural quality but provides no evidence that the proposed composition or framing is novel relative to established adaptive scheduling and network-utility work.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any novelty or originality claim.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports only internal structural, causal, and test-design judgments; it cannot establish novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt; both the problem identifier and causal-lever identifier are recorded as unchanged, with no prior repair to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate cleanly identifies a coarse allocation rule inside genuine information-theoretic constraints, connects that rule to a bounded adaptive intervention, and supplies independent falsifiers, incidence checks, protected thresholds, and rollback. Its principal unresolved boundary is novelty, which is openly unsearched and does not undermine the internal quality judgment."}