{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__logistics_supply_chain","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"d626f20e4de89a8477ebf3a683ff4191b2930e834efbc5a9938d8bb7a1f631c3","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The terminal appointment problem is independently recognizable through simultaneous peak queues, delayed freight, and usable off-peak dock capacity, and it is explicitly separated from raw capacity shortage."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Flat access terms form a plausible allocation wedge, blocked freight movements represent foregone value, protected constraints remain visible, and the redesign includes incidence, monitoring, and reversibility."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Scarcity-adjusted appointment terms can plausibly induce flexible carriers to retime, reducing peak concentration while increasing use of slack periods; the proposal correctly conditions this mechanism on actual schedule flexibility."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is comprehensive, the pricing mechanism is load-bearing, supporting mechanisms have bounded roles, and rejected mechanisms are distinguished by diagnosis rather than merely omitted."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unobserved premises and effects are labeled as hypotheses or conditional inferences, alternative queue causes are disclosed, and the candidate makes no unsupported performance or novelty claim."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem can be rejected by operational evidence showing no usable off-peak slack or a processing-capacity cause, while the intervention can separately be rejected by comparative pilot outcomes or net harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is explicitly conditional on contractual, labor, safety, and governance review; the first intervention is bounded; protected freight and inspections are excluded; and automatic suspension and reversion conditions are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's full structure: a diagnosed avoidable wedge, blocked value, protected purposes, matched redesign, incidence review, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Dock appointments, carrier scheduling constraints, labor availability, turn time, off-peak vacancy, shipment classes, and neighborhood displacement are specific and coherent logistics realizations."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The retiming and self-selection chain is credible but depends materially on carrier flexibility, usable slack capacity, consignee availability, and sufficient price responsiveness."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete domain realization, including compensation, sensitivity analysis, authority review, behavioral response, and an expiring pilot."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts capacity shortage, labor and inspection bottlenecks, fixed freight windows, distributional harm, gaming, induced demand, and displaced externalities."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes terminal queueing as a potentially avoidable time-allocation wedge while retaining clear boundaries against physical undersupply and administrative priority allocation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow study, scoped pilot, baseline, observables, exclusions, and rollback path are actionable, though terminal-specific eligibility and decision thresholds still require local specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible design offers meaningful delay and utilization upside while containing safety, access, labor, and neighborhood risks through monitoring and exemptions."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The candidate provides no comparative prior-art evidence for novelty.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, compare the combined diagnostic, credit, shadow-pricing, and rollback design with documented terminal appointment-pricing practices.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural quality and testability only, not novelty or observed effectiveness."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-specific, falsifiable, and reversibly testable adaptation whose empirical premises remain appropriately bounded as hypotheses; novelty remains unsupported but is not required for success."}