{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__marine_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3c6d725e4cd8fbb97c7c65ab66ed639b07011aca352eb8ffb01e0df3ed801a93","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently stated as simultaneous avoidable vessel idleness and compatible qualified demand blocked by allocation rules, with physical and regulatory alternatives explicitly excluded."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps a specific allocation wedge, blocked beneficial use, protected purposes, incidence, a bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback without treating genuine scarcity or safeguards as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Conditional transfer directly targets the hypothesized nontransferability wedge, while the causal chain, nearest rival, and rule-alone falsifier distinguish it from forecasting, matching, and physical-capacity explanations."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is substantially complete, the non-price diagnosis is coherent, and selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, causal, operational, evaluative, and safety roles with credible removal tests."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"Claims are honestly bounded as hypotheses, but the packet contains no operational records establishing material rule-caused stranded days, compatible unmet demand, treatment effects, or prior-art status. Those facts cannot be inferred closed-book."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged wedge exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether conditional transfer improves qualified use without breaching protected thresholds. Decision thresholds still require prespecification."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is scoped to the operator and allocation body, independent vetoes remain intact, excluded actions are explicit, and immediate halt, reversion, and expiry provisions bound safety and environmental exposure."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates avoidable value loss from a stale allocation constraint while preserving the legitimate capacity limit and substantive protections."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Vessel compatibility, observation windows, equipment, crews, permits, weather, maintenance, and scientific review are integrated coherently, although their empirical prevalence in the target fleet is unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"If operational capacity and compatible demand coincide, transfer authority can plausibly convert stranded days into cruises; cause coding and the stated rival appropriately constrain that inference."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every archetype component has a concrete marine-science realization, and omission of price diagnostics is explicitly justified by the hypothesized non-price wedge."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate addresses nonfungibility, irrecoverable cancellations, strategic behavior, unequal readiness, crew burden, permit mismatch, and utilization-quality substitution, but evidence is absent on which threat dominates."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal usefully separates fixed safe fleet capacity from the rule governing released capacity and reframes idle days as potentially recoverable only after compatibility and protection checks."},"practicality_testability":{"score":2,"reason":"The pilot is bounded and observable, but the estimand, comparison construction, decision thresholds, attribution rules, and handling of sparse eligible releases are not fully prespecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Exposure is contained through narrow scope, unchanged hard gates, independent vetoes, immediate suspension, and expiry, though administrative and crew burdens remain empirically uncertain."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is expressly unsearched, so neither novelty nor differentiation from existing vessel scheduling and reassignment practices is evidenced."}},"weighted_total":76.25,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["practicality_testability","novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The central empirical premise that allocation rules materially strand reusable vessel-days is unsupported within the packet.","repair":"Obtain cause-coded cancellation, vessel-availability, demand, compatibility, reassignment, and completed-cruise records from the defined fleet and test whether rule-alone blocked cases are material.","evidence_boundary":"No fleet records, observed cases, effect estimates, or external sources are supplied, so existence and magnitude cannot be guessed closed-book."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The pilot lacks prespecified outcome definitions and decision rules adequate to distinguish causal recovery from ordinary scheduling variation.","repair":"Define the primary estimand, eligibility and compatibility rules, comparison method, observation window, attribution protocol, equity and safeguard thresholds, and renewal or rollback criteria before implementation.","evidence_boundary":"The packet names relevant outcomes and a comparison concept but supplies no operational analysis plan or justified thresholds."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and overlap with existing standby-pool or cruise-reassignment practices are unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of fleet allocation policies and document whether the proposed authority, matching rule, safeguards, or evaluation design is materially differentiated.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly marks prior art as unsearched; no novelty conclusion is supportable from the supplied material."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair to compare; remaining weaknesses concern missing evidence and test specification rather than demonstrated improvement."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, domain-aware, causally coherent, and safely bounded. Advancement depends on operational evidence that the allocation wedge materially exists, a prespecified evaluation design, and prior-art research; none can be supplied by closed-book inference."}