{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__neuroscience","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"afa4f70df29cacdbd0987327a70501c07dc6b57e81f8646728eff073f00a3ede","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The imaging-core scheduling problem is independently observable through booking, readiness, cancellation, compatibility, staffing, and utilization records rather than being defined solely by the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate maps a specific allocation wedge, blocked compatible use, protected constraints, a matched redesign lever, incidence effects, and reversible monitoring without treating genuine scarcity as distortion."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Transferability, earlier release, protected-priority ordering, and rapid eligibility-filtered rematching directly address the hypothesized mechanisms that strand compatible scanner capacity."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is complete and internally coherent; selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, causal, safeguard, testing, and governance roles, while unsuitable pricing and approval mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are labeled as hypotheses, the diagnosis is conditional on audit findings, scientific value is not falsely monetized, and prior-art status is explicitly unsearched."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem diagnosis and intervention have separate preregisterable falsifiers: the audit can refute coexistence of avoidable capacity loss and compatible demand, while the pilot can independently refute benefit or reveal unacceptable harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded to institutional scheduling governance, participant and protocol protections remain unchanged, clinical capacity is excluded, and suspension, expiry, and restoration rules constrain the pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's core distinction between avoidable allocation loss and legitimate protective or scarcity constraints and carries that distinction through diagnosis, redesign, incidence, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Scanner compatibility, protocol readiness, participant safety, technologist coverage, setup requirements, data quality, and research-access governance are credibly represented, though local operating patterns remain unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention changes the identified reservation and rematching bottlenecks, and the chain explains why released compatible capacity should translate into completed sessions while preserving hard eligibility gates."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component is translated, adapted, or explicitly marked incompatible, with domain-specific realizations and no material mechanism role left implicit."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses undersupply, maintenance, setup, incompatible sessions, study unreadiness, gaming, prestige bias, staff burden, safety error, heterogeneous slots, and unequal access as rival explanations or failure modes."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes apparent scanner shortage as a testable mixture of true scarcity, protected operating requirements, stale allocation, and rematching failure, enabling a more targeted response than capacity expansion alone."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot, audit inputs, comparator, outcomes, exclusions, expiry, and halt conditions are actionable, but exact thresholds, matching rules, and controls for temporal variation still require preregistration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention offers plausible recovery of already funded capacity with limited exposure and strong rollback protections, while residual risks include operational burden, gaming, access shifts, and weak correspondence between scan-hours and scientific value."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"No prior-art search, comparative implementation review, or other evidence establishes that the proposed scheduling composition is novel."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The halt and access-floor conditions are conceptually clear but not operationally specified.","repair":"Before implementation, preregister measurable safety attribution rules, protected-access floors, staff-burden limits, and decision owners using historical variability and governance approval.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports the categories of safeguards but supplies no local distributions or validated thresholds."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Matched ordinary-scheduling periods may be confounded by changing study mix, staffing, maintenance, or seasonal demand.","repair":"Specify the comparison method, compatibility strata, exclusion rules, and adjustment for staffing, maintenance, readiness, and scan-type mix before observing pilot outcomes.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed comparator is testable, but the packet does not establish baseline comparability."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Recovered scan-hours and completed sessions may overstate scientific benefit.","repair":"Report operational recovery separately from downstream scientific value and include quality, protocol completion, participant burden, and abandonment outcomes where feasible.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate expressly recognizes heterogeneous scientific value but provides no validated common value measure."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty is unsupported.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of imaging-core waitlists, automatic reservation release, transferable allocations, and equity-aware scheduling before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred closed-book."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no predecessor repairs, and no claimed revision-based improvement."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for success. It presents a structurally faithful, domain-credible, causally direct, bounded, and falsifiable scheduling intervention with strong safety, equity, authority, and rollback controls. Remaining limitations concern local operational calibration, comparator rigor, scientific-value measurement, and absent novelty evidence rather than structural viability."}