{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__literature_literary_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"c71e6ffac1fe3acadbf23d3591ec7e50e494b0ab566a25d28e2b6b58195b0ac4","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The finite-slot curricular allocation problem is recognizable without relying on the source archetype or its terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Mandatory titles function as an allocation constraint, the proposal identifies displaced uses, preserves protected curricular purposes, and redesigns the specific assignment rule."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Holding workload and coverage constant while permitting rubric-governed substitutions could directly release constrained slots; the conditional causal chain is coherent and separately testable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is substantially complete, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, test, and safeguard roles."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The packet supplies no local evidence that fixed-title mandates bind, that feasible substitutes are equivalent, or that the proposed outcomes occur; the candidate correctly labels these claims as hypotheses, but closed-book judgment cannot establish them."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Problem and intervention falsifiers are distinct: one tests whether a harmful allocation wedge exists, while the other tests whether the proposed substitution regime improves outcomes without breaching protections."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formal curriculum authority, consultation, bounded scope, exclusions, monitoring, halt conditions, and restoration of the prior regime are explicitly specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates an avoidable allocation wedge, blocked value, preserved protection, incidence review, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The realization uses credible curricular objects and disciplinary concerns, although parts of the framing sit in graduate-program governance rather than literary theory proper."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The lever targets the stated slot-allocation constraint and anticipates important mediators and failure modes, but its key empirical premises remain unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every relevant component receives a concrete domain realization, and the price-specific diagnostic is appropriately marked incompatible."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts non-substitutability, common-reference infrastructure, adviser inequity, measurement bias, gaming, administrative burden, and analogy failure."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The allocation-wedge frame clarifies the difference between shared competence and inherited title rigidity while avoiding a generic anti-canon argument."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded cohort comparison, fixed workload, published rubric, monitored outcomes, expiry, and rollback make the proposal testable, though exact measures and margins still require local specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains are meaningful and the pilot contains major risks, but fragmentation, discretionary exclusion, and weak outcome measurement could still offset them."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":["No fabricated citations or asserted empirical findings were detected; unsupported target-domain claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses.","Novelty is not established because prior art was not searched."],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The existence and magnitude of the alleged title-allocation wedge are not evidenced.","repair":"Collect local list histories, slot counts, petition records, displaced-work examples, reading-time data, and outcome evidence before treating the problem as established.","evidence_boundary":"The packet provides a coherent diagnosis but no observations from an actual graduate program."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Substitutability and the value of common titles remain unresolved empirical premises.","repair":"Predefine competency-equivalence criteria and compare approved substitutes with retained common titles while measuring cross-course coordination, assessment consistency, and unequal advising effects.","evidence_boundary":"Structural analogy alone cannot determine whether particular canonical titles are replaceable educational infrastructure."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot names outcome categories but not operational measures or decision margins.","repair":"Specify instruments, sampling, comparison design, subgroup analyses, threshold owners, review capacity limits, and restoration triggers before authorization.","evidence_boundary":"The current design supports falsification in principle but does not yet yield a fully executable protocol."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No evidence supports novelty relative to existing flexible-list, competency-based, or canon-reform practices.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and state whether the contribution is a new intervention, a new mechanism composition, or only a new analytical framing.","evidence_boundary":"The declared prior-art status is unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no supplied repair history against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, domain-aware, adversarially serious, and safely testable in outline. Its decisive limitation is evidentiary: the alleged curricular wedge, substitutability premise, outcome effects, and novelty cannot be established from the closed-book packet."}