{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__military_strategic_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"54d7ff46a9db9d4b0fa6d5ef9e832e5c852d827136bf83e7948d8f40d63caeeb","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines stale, nontransferable ISR allocation as an independently recognizable problem and distinguishes it from total scarcity, approval delay, and matching failure."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Fixed assignments form a clear allocation wedge; feasible higher-priority collection is the blocked activity; protected command, safety, legal, and readiness purposes are preserved through bounded transfer safeguards."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed rule directly changes transferability of eligible capacity, while the baseline and manual-exception rival isolate allocation-rule effects from faster administration."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-translated, and load-bearing mechanisms remain distinct from supporting assessment and safety mechanisms."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, apparent slack is not asserted as waste, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and no unsupported factual authority is claimed."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether feasible unmet demand materially coexists with locked usable capacity, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether controlled transfer outperforms both comparators without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is non-live and bounded, decision authority is identified, controlling restrictions remain hard gates, and explicit halt and rollback conditions cover disclosure, legality, safety, readiness, gaming, and access failures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full archetypal structure of avoidable allocation loss, protected purpose, incidence review, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects command authority, operational priority, contingency reserve, classification, coalition constraints, platform feasibility, downstream processing, and adversarial uncertainty."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and comparator design is strong, but whether nontransferability is actually binding remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named archetype component receives a concrete ISR realization, including safeguards, behavioral responses, authority review, sensitivity analysis, and sunset logic."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts reserve misclassification, incompatibility, true scarcity, processing bottlenecks, priority gaming, readiness erosion, and exercise representativeness."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes apparent ISR shortage as a potentially separable allocation wedge while refusing to equate utilization with mission value or legitimacy."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A shadow comparison is bounded and measurable, though authorized data access, compatible-case coding, priority weighting, and protected-metric thresholds require operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The non-live first step offers meaningful learning with limited direct operational exposure, while classified-data handling and misleading shadow results remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The proposal may be distinctive in formulation, 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":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, so no improvement over an earlier candidate can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate. It presents a structurally faithful, domain-aware, safely bounded test of whether stale ISR allocation rules—not scarcity or approval latency—block feasible higher-priority use. Its principal unresolved weakness is the absence of prior-art and novelty evidence."}