{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__innovation_entrepreneurship","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2f44839198afbc91a031f369a3b27dfaba11a197a02266e917e9a06dc29f2163","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a domain-specific problem involving production-grade controls applied to bounded startup experiments, independently of the archetype vocabulary."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The coarse approval path functions as a value-blocking wedge, the protected purposes are explicit, and the proposed risk-tiered path preserves those purposes through proportionate safeguards."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The causal chain plausibly connects disproportionate proof burden and delay to experiment abandonment, then connects bounded approval reform to additional learning while retaining production re-review."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Required components are translated coherently, the price component is appropriately ruled out, and selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, causal, safety, evaluation, and expiry roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effect size, and novelty are explicitly left unverified; substantive assertions are labeled as hypotheses or inferences and paired with prospective tests."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, including controls for readiness and genuine risk, comparative launch outcomes, and independent safety, equity, workload, and evidence-quality thresholds."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded to delegated organizational owners, statutory duties and affected-party rights remain controlling, prohibited actions are explicit, and incident isolation, admission pauses, reversion, and expiry provide credible safety controls."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates an avoidable approval wedge while preserving legitimate constraints, incidence review, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Actors, incentives, workflows, learning outcomes, adoption decisions, sponsor access, and startup validation are rendered specifically for innovation and entrepreneurship practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanism is coherent and rival explanations are identified, but the binding-wedge premise and comparative effect remain empirical hypotheses for the pilot to test."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is comprehensive, domain-specific, and selective about inapplicable price mechanisms rather than forcing superficial coverage."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts genuine-risk screening, poor product readiness, weak sponsor commitment, non-isolable digital harms, induced demand, gaming, inequitable access, and innovation theater."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes failed startup pilots from a generic innovation-culture problem into a potentially disproportionate approval wedge with separable protective and procedural elements."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded cohort, eligibility limits, comparison baseline, operational measures, falsifiers, stop signals, and expiry make the intervention implementable and testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"Isolation, minimized or synthetic data, exclusion of consequential and production workflows, reclassification, production re-review, and rapid rollback strongly bound downside while preserving learning value."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The central binding-wedge claim remains unverified in the target organization.","repair":"Predeclare a comparative evaluation that tests whether production-grade requirements predict abandonment, delay, and evidence generation after accounting for readiness, sponsorship, integration needs, and genuine risk.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports causal plausibility and a safe test design, not an empirical claim about prevalence or effect size."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No prior-art evidence supports distinctiveness of the composed intervention.","repair":"Conduct a bounded review of enterprise startup sandboxes, procurement fast tracks, regulatory sandboxes, and risk-tiered vendor pilots before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"The current record appropriately reports prior art as unsearched and should retain that boundary until research is completed."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs; the remaining limitation is uncollected empirical and novelty evidence rather than attributable revision improvement."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, domain-specific, causally coherent, falsifiable, and unusually well bounded for authority and safety. Its empirical premise remains testable rather than established, and novelty is unsupported, but neither limitation is disguised or required to justify the scoped pilot."}