{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__medicine_healthcare","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2649968ebcac09e474b51aa9cfb918553f82f209af873b1d6d0895c755c81f6c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a specific healthcare problem—repetitive renewal of unchanged maintenance therapies—rather than merely restating avoidable wedges in domain vocabulary."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The expiring permission rule, blocked treatment continuation, protected clinical review, incidence analysis, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback correspond closely to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes which stable cases enter full re-review, and the chain from expiration through blocked dispensing to authorization-attributable gaps is explicit and independently testable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core and safeguard components are translated coherently; incompatible price and matching mechanisms are rejected, while diagnostic, streamlining, assessment, incidence, pilot, and sunset mechanisms have distinct roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, alternative causes are named, and no unsupported effect or prevalence claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether renewal creates distinct gaps or work and whether review changes management, while the intervention falsifier separately tests comparative benefit and protected outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority, narrow authorization, exclusions, clinician escalation, appeal and nondiscrimination protections, monitoring, halt conditions, and reversion to the ordinary pathway are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal instantiates the wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence, redesign, behavioral response, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback structure with little strain."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, authorization workflow, dispensing block, clinical exceptions, governance, appeals, and healthcare-specific risks are represented credibly and without treating care as an ordinary market exchange."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The lever is proximal to the diagnosed authorization block and the comparison is clear, but the magnitude and dominant causal contribution of renewal remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly all relevant components receive concrete healthcare realizations, and the explicitly incompatible price diagnostic is appropriately excluded rather than forced."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses legitimate stewardship, competing causes of treatment gaps, trigger-classification failure, gaming, inequity, displaced workload, and pilot generalizability."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively separates protective clinical review from repetitive procedural review and distinguishes changing review incidence from merely automating the same workflow."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded cohort, baseline, linked outcomes, comparator, escalation path, sunset, and rollback are proposed, though eligibility rules, margins, and trigger thresholds still require protocol specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible narrow pilot offers credible continuity and capacity benefits while containing risk, but net value depends on uncertain safety, utilization, equity, and fiscal effects."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing payer policies, exemptions, or authorization reforms."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposal supplies no prior-art evidence for novelty or differentiation from existing authorization exemptions and renewal policies.","repair":"Conduct a documented prior-art and policy search, then state the nearest implemented comparators and the proposal's testable distinguishing features.","evidence_boundary":"Until that search is completed, novelty must remain unestablished."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Eligibility logic, comparison design, accepted margins, and halt thresholds are described categorically but not operationalized.","repair":"Pre-register cohort criteria, change triggers, attribution rules, outcome definitions, comparative margins, subgroup analyses, and escalation and rollback thresholds before enrollment.","evidence_boundary":"Exact thresholds require therapy-specific baseline data and accountable clinical governance."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle, changed identifier, or claimed improvement to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates because it presents a domain-specific, causally direct, component-complete, falsifiable, bounded, and authority-aware redesign. Its main unresolved weakness is absent novelty evidence, while empirical effectiveness and safety remain appropriately framed for prospective testing."}