{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__linguistics_semiotics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"a123688829a780c2e53c19733fb0779aa7909f4869d54118f91a818e6a2cc76e","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently recognizable assessment problem: task-adequate dialect variants may be rejected because of a canonical-form rule, with observable consequences for placement, certification, retesting, and appeals."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping identifies a potentially avoidable scoring wedge, blocked access and capability use, legitimate measurement protections, a wedge-specific rubric redesign, incidence review, bounded implementation, monitoring, and reversal."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed rubric directly changes the hypothesized classification rule rather than merely treating downstream appeals or training symptoms. The baseline and rater-training rival permit attribution of effects to accepted-form eligibility."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core and safeguarding components are translated coherently, inapplicable price mechanisms are explicitly rejected, and the selected diagnostic, allocation-review, assessment, incidence, and pilot mechanisms have distinct roles with counterfactual-removal logic."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical propositions are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, and the candidate does not present citations, measurements, or validation outcomes as established facts."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether variant status independently predicts adverse outcomes, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the expanded rubric improves false rejection without unacceptable validity, reliability, burden, or subgroup effects."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is bounded by psychometric, accreditation, legal, and affected-party obligations. The first step is limited and reversible, prohibited actions are explicit, and preregistered halt and correction provisions protect affected candidates."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's full logic of diagnosing an avoidable wedge, separating its protected purpose, redesigning the causal constraint, reviewing incidence, and monitoring reversible implementation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The problem and intervention use domain-appropriate distinctions among linguistic form, semantic and pragmatic adequacy, construct validity, dialect variation, scoring reliability, and downstream communicative performance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The rule-to-score-to-access pathway is coherent and directly testable, but whether separable functionally equivalent variants are materially penalized remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Components are translated into concrete assessment artifacts and decisions, while incompatible price-oriented elements are identified rather than forced into the domain."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts construct drift, context-sensitive equivalence, genuine ambiguity, gaming, subgroup harms, and the possibility that standardized form is itself part of the certified construct."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The deadweight-loss frame usefully connects measurement error to blocked capability and concentrated conformity costs, though fairness and construct-validity frames already capture substantial parts of the problem."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"Stratified archived-response shadow scoring, preregistered criteria, a bounded live cohort, explicit comparators, observable outcomes, and rollback thresholds form an implementable test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot offers plausible access and classification benefits while containing risk, but construct drift, communication failures, labeling harms, and accreditation constraints remain consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty is not evidenced within the closed-book packet."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The packet establishes a strong testable conjecture but provides no evidence that the rubric design or framing is novel relative to existing dialect-sensitive assessment practice.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any novelty claim, while keeping efficacy evaluation separate from novelty evaluation.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly marks prior art as unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is available from the supplied evidence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior repair cycle and no change to either the problem identifier or causal-lever identifier."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-grounded, causally discriminable, adversarially aware, bounded by appropriate authority, and ready for empirical testing; only novelty remains unevidenced."}