{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__material_culture_museum_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"b5a514f8e170bb3e01a42ff6a7ef1c0e05d3edaf9e1b113a6bb3fd3f3bbffd9c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently intelligible museum-access problem: transferable supervised-study capacity may remain unused while qualified demand is blocked by booking and release rules."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence review, targeted redesign, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Conditional on transferable idle capacity existing, confirmation and release rules can directly determine whether eligible waiting demand fills it; the candidate appropriately separates this lever from raw scarcity and substantive approval."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Required components are translated coherently, the omitted price diagnostic is explicitly resolved, selected mechanisms have distinct roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with the diagnosed wedge."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal labels the wedge as a hypothesis, treats benefits as estimates, leaves prior art unsearched, and does not present local prevalence or effect claims as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether transferable idle capacity overlaps with blocked qualified demand because of allocation rules, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether redesigned release and reassignment improve access without breaching safeguards."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to museum access governance with conservation, legal, ethics, and source-community gates; excluded actions, containment, sunset, suspension, and rollback conditions protect objects, rights, consent, staff, and equity."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates avoidable allocation loss while preserving legitimate scarcity and protective constraints."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Object non-fungibility, conservation work, staff expertise, provenance, privacy, legal limits, and source-community authority materially shape both diagnosis and intervention."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The release-and-reassignment chain is credible and directly testable, but its effect depends on locally unverified overlap among compatible objects, staff, authorization, and waiting demand."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is comprehensive, domain-specific, internally consistent, and includes safeguards, incidence, behavioral response, sensitivity, reversibility, and authority."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest rival explanations, capacity non-transferability, hidden staff work, rapid-responder advantage, safeguard erosion, and throughput bias with distinct countertests."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively shifts the intervention from generic scheduling improvement or capacity expansion to governance of holds, priorities, release entitlements, and transferable access."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot, baseline, observables, expiry, and halt logic are practical, though local measurement definitions and threshold-setting procedures remain to be specified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains are meaningful and the design limits exposure, but staff burden, equity effects, sensitive-information handling, and object-specific compatibility could reduce net value."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The museum-specific synthesis is plausibly distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no novelty evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The existence and magnitude of transferable idle capacity remain unestablished.","repair":"Operationalize slot compatibility, qualified blocked demand, avoidable idle time, and staff burden, then collect a baseline before activating the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"This is an acknowledged local empirical gap, not evidence that the proposed wedge exists."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal supplies no evidence that the intervention or framing is novel in museum access practice.","repair":"Review museum collection-access policies and relevant museum-studies literature before making novelty or priority claims.","evidence_boundary":"The structural evaluation supports coherence and testability only; it does not establish originality."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-sensitive, falsifiable adaptation with unusually strong protection of conservation, cultural authority, equity, and reversibility. Its central empirical premise and novelty remain open research questions, but both are explicitly bounded rather than fabricated, and neither defeats the proposed diagnostic-first pilot."}