{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__library_information_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"6672f4c1460276c04a4f4bff08102105a576cea76f81e312743e304f6beeaad3","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The access-exclusion problem is independently specified through observable circulation states, affected parties, consequences, and a falsifier rather than being defined merely as an instance of the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The overdue-fine wedge, blocked collection use, legitimate availability protection, incidence, bounded redesign, and monitoring loop correspond closely to the archetype without treating all lending constraints as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes the monetary and account-block mechanism while retaining due dates, hold-sensitive controls, return-linked suspension, and loss recovery; the pilot can distinguish restored access from displaced availability harm."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All core components are translated into domain-specific functions, selected mechanisms have distinct roles, rejected mechanisms are coherently excluded, and counterfactual-removal statements identify the load-bearing contributions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prevalence, effect, incidence, and authority claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences; no local measurements or prior-art findings are fabricated, and uncertainty is carried into the assessment and pilot."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether fine-triggered blocks actually suppress access, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the sanction redesign improves access without unacceptable availability, fiscal, operational, or distributional harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority, excluded actions, protected purposes, affected parties, bounded scope, halt conditions, and rollback authority are specified with appropriate legal, fiscal, labor, privacy, and consortium qualifications."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate maps the wedge, protected constraint, blocked value, incidence, matched redesign, behavioral response, and reversible monitoring cycle with strong correspondence."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in circulation policy, holds, renewals, replacement billing, collection stewardship, branch governance, patron privacy, and the competing access claims of borrowers and waiting patrons."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The pathway from monetary sanctions and account blocks to reduced borrowing is coherent and testable, but its magnitude and the relative deterrent value of fines remain locally unmeasured."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally translated, including safeguards, incidence, sensitivity, authority, fiscal dependence, monitoring, and rollback."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts scarcity, genuine cost recovery, return deterrence, waiting harms, fiscal effects, unequal burdens, strategic delay, and delayed outcomes through explicit counterevidence and failure conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes fine abolition as repair of a potentially excessive access wedge under collection-availability constraints, though the basic policy family is recognizable rather than wholly novel."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot, baseline comparison, observable outcomes, expiry, and halt rules are implementable, but exact estimands, comparison construction, thresholds, and follow-up duration still require protocol-level specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention offers meaningful access and administrative upside with reversibility and safeguards, while residual risks remain around long-tail lateness, losses, revenue dependence, and effects on waiting patrons."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports unsearched prior art and supplies no evidence establishing novelty of the policy or mechanism composition."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Originality and prior-art position are unsupported.","repair":"Before making novelty claims, compare the bounded sanction design and its combined access, availability, incidence, and rollback protocol with documented fine-free and return-linked library policies.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet contains no prior-art search, prevalence evidence, or external comparison."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot is testable but not yet fully specified as an evaluable protocol.","repair":"Pre-register the comparison construction, estimands, approved harm bounds, review cadence, missing-data handling, and follow-up window long enough to detect delayed loss and fiscal effects.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate names measures and halt categories but does not provide locally calibrated thresholds or a complete analysis plan."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no supplied repairs to assess for improvement."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, domain-faithful, causally testable, component-complete, and safely bounded. Its empirical claims remain appropriately hypothetical, and the decisive remaining gap is novelty evidence rather than fit or safety."}