{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__nanotechnology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"295a34e78b7e39e279b81d621bb452cd88671796e7730b928b1a3b6b543898ba","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable facility-allocation problem: safely executable capacity may expire while compatible qualified work waits. The problem remains coherent without presupposing the transfer-pool intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype’s wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback structure while distinguishing nominal downtime from avoidable stranded capacity."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes the hypothesized binding rule by permitting constrained transfer of expiring reservations. The chain is conditional on demonstrating that nontransferability, rather than physical scarcity or discovery failure, blocks compatible work."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Load-bearing diagnostic and allocation-review mechanisms perform distinct necessary functions, while supporting assessment, incidence, and pilot mechanisms complete the safeguards. Rejected price, matching, approval, and sunset mechanisms are coherently separated."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical premises are explicitly labeled as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and nominal idle time is not represented as verified executable capacity. No unsupported validation claim is made."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests coexistence of executable idle capacity and blocked compatible demand, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether reassignment improves outcomes without unacceptable deterioration. These can fail independently."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is assigned to facility governance with tool-owner and safety participation. Training, compatibility, maintenance, emergency capacity, and safety checks remain excluded from relaxation, with a bounded first step and explicit suspension path."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates avoidable allocation loss while preserving legitimate constraints, incidence review, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Tool compatibility, contamination history, process sequencing, maintenance, staffing, operator skill, and qualification gates are treated as substantive nanofabrication constraints rather than generic scheduling details."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Rule-based transfer could recover genuinely executable openings, but the binding premise remains empirical and could collapse if apparent downtime reflects setup, staffing, or safety constraints."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is comprehensive, domain-specific, and candid about incompatible price machinery. Adapted components retain their original functions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates genuine scarcity, heterogeneous slots, discovery failure, strategic booking, capture, rebound, shifted staff burden, and contamination risk, with discriminating tests and halt conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes a superficial scheduling complaint as a potentially avoidable allocation wedge, although that gain depends on showing that visibility and ordinary scheduling friction are not the dominant causes."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow schedule, bounded live pilot, comparison outcomes, exclusions, and rollback path are actionable. Priority ranking and several operational thresholds still require predeclaration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains arise from existing capacity without relaxing core safeguards, and exposure is bounded and reversible. Benefit magnitude and administrative burden remain unmeasured."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported within the closed-book packet."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The existence and magnitude of safely executable stranded capacity remain unverified.","repair":"Use the authorized shadow audit to classify every apparent opening by staffing, maintenance, setup, compatibility, safety, and allocation status before interpreting it as recoverable capacity.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a falsifiable hypothesis and audit design, not facility records demonstrating the premise."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The readiness, priority, access-concentration, and minor-incident rules are not yet operationally fixed.","repair":"Predeclare the ranking variables, tie-break procedure, minimum-access protection, concentration threshold, incident trigger, and comparison analysis before any live reassignment.","evidence_boundary":"The packet names these controls but does not provide calibrated values or a complete decision procedure."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing facility scheduling and reservation-transfer practices is unknown.","repair":"Compare the proposed composition with published nanofabrication facility policies and scheduling systems before making a novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The classification explicitly records prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier. Neither identifier is reported as changed, and no prior repair is available for improvement attribution."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates as a structurally faithful, domain-specific, falsifiable, and safely bounded application. Its central empirical premise and novelty remain open research questions, but those uncertainties are disclosed and built into the proposed test rather than presented as established findings."}