{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__music_musicology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"7e4581605a2ccc36aeb8f6a4bb0456982b454e915ae66180f6cdc761930ba1ca","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The rehearsal-room problem is independently specified through observable unused reservations, unmet compatible demand, affected parties, and consequences without relying on the source analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate maps a rule-created allocation wedge, blocked beneficial use, protected constraints, incidence review, bounded redesign, and monitoring directly onto the target structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Usage-contingent release removes the identified incumbency wedge, and compatibility-aware rematching connects released capacity to eligible demand; the baseline, supply-side rival, and failure paths are explicit."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All required components receive domain-specific realizations, selected mechanisms have distinct roles and removal tests, and rejected pricing or approval mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with the diagnosis."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effect size, and prior art are explicitly left unsupported; claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, and the proposal conditions action on a local audit and pilot evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the allocation wedge exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether release and rematching reduce the loss without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority, affected parties, protected exemptions, excluded actions, appeal, bounded scope, halt conditions, expiry, and rollback are all specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the complete deadweight-loss pattern while distinguishing avoidable lockup from legitimate capacity and access protections."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Room heterogeneity, acoustics, equipment, ensemble continuity, accessibility, scheduling, and safeguarding make the translation specifically music-institutional rather than generic."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Release plus compatible rematching plausibly converts unused protected capacity into realized rehearsal use, though measurement error, strategic check-ins, and limited substitutability could attenuate the effect."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every component is translated into a concrete diagnostic, safeguard, decision artifact, implementation boundary, or learning rule with coherent adaptation where monetary valuation or pricing is unsuitable."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts raw scarcity, false observations, continuity needs, room incompatibility, gaming, privacy burden, rebound, and administrative load with discriminating tests and rollback conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes apparent room shortage as a testable allocation loss while retaining the possibility that audited evidence will restore the supply-shortage diagnosis."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"Booking records, check-ins, waitlists, room attributes, and a bounded pilot make the proposal operational, but decision thresholds and a privacy-preserving measure of meaningful use still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible, limited intervention has credible upside and bounded exposure, although continuity, privacy, disparate burden, and administrative costs require local evidence before expansion."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The pilot invokes meaningful coexistence, unacceptable displacement, and negligible recovery without operational decision thresholds.","repair":"Pre-register threshold definitions, denominators, comparison windows, subgroup checks, and the exact scale-up, adjustment, and rollback rules before intervention.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values must come from institutional baseline data and stakeholder-authorized protection tolerances, not closed-book inference."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"A check-in can be gamed and may not establish meaningful room use, while stronger monitoring could become privacy-invasive.","repair":"Validate a minimally invasive utilization measure against sampled observations and cancellation records, document error rates, and prohibit collection beyond the pilot's allocation purpose.","evidence_boundary":"Measurement validity and acceptable privacy burden require local validation and authorized review."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal provides no evidence that the intervention or framing is novel relative to existing rehearsal-space allocation practice.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of conservatory room-reclamation, waitlist, and no-show policies before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty cannot be inferred from the isolated packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, falsifiable allocation-wedge proposal with a credible causal intervention and strong safeguards. Its main remaining gaps concern local threshold calibration, measurement validation, and external novelty evidence rather than conceptual fit."}