{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__performing_arts_theatre","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"154d9498c6e5c63226272eaee25d041c894a44ddb7c6b01445ce8d85e5e8b8be","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently observable coexistence of denied suitable requests and idle suitable capacity, rather than treating price dissatisfaction or the proposed intervention as the problem."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Flat pricing, coarse blocks, and queue priority are mapped to a specific allocation wedge, while protected purposes, incidence, redesign boundaries, monitoring, and rollback preserve the archetype's structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed terms and release rules can plausibly alter timing and reservation behavior when slots are substitutable, and the candidate explicitly conditions the claim on testing that premise against rival causes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All named archetype components receive theatre-specific realizations, selected mechanisms have distinct roles and removal tests, and rejected mechanisms are separated coherently from the load-bearing composition."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is declared unsearched, uncertainty is exposed, and no unsupported citation or established-effect claim is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed wedge exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the redesign improves realized use without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is bounded by governance and legal obligations; protected checks remain intact; pricing is capped; the pilot is reversible; and explicit halt conditions address access, safety, gaming, complaints, and fiscal viability."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely reproduces the wedge diagnosis, protected-purpose separation, incidence review, scoped redesign, and adaptive monitoring logic of the archetype."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal accounts for theatre-specific coordination, technical suitability, artistic value, staffing, labor, accessibility, audience timing, neighborhood constraints, and venue governance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The behavioral pathway is coherent but depends materially on temporal substitutability, demand response, credit effectiveness, and the combined influence of pricing and allocation rules."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into concrete venue-booking artifacts and decisions without obvious omissions or generic placeholders."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies differentiated capacity, wealth-based rationing, coordinated scheduling, search failure, undersupply, gaming, and unrepresentative sampling as serious threats and supplies discriminating tests."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It turns a generic scarcity or affordability dispute into a testable distinction among avoidable temporal misallocation, differentiated capacity, protected access, and genuine undersupply."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded comparison is executable and instrumented, though theatrical lead times, spillovers across booking periods, sample size, and simultaneous treatment changes may complicate inference."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversibility, bounded exposure, credits, safeguards, and rollback limit downside, but distributional harm and operational disruption remain plausible if willingness to pay poorly tracks artistic or community value."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The record explicitly states that prior art is unsearched and supplies no evidence establishing novelty for the mechanism composition."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot changes pricing, block granularity, release rules, and credits together, limiting attribution if outcomes move.","repair":"Use a preregistered factorial or staged rollout where operationally feasible, or state that the estimand is the bundled policy and avoid component-level causal claims.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports the bundle's causal logic but provides no empirical basis for separating the contribution of each lever."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"A short booking experiment may not observe completed productions or capture normal theatrical planning cycles.","repair":"Add leading indicators tied to later completion, define follow-up through the production horizon, and stratify or block assignment by production type and booking lead time.","evidence_boundary":"Feasibility is described structurally; adequate duration, sample size, and representativeness are not established."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty and prior-art status remain unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded review of theatre venue pricing, cultural-space allocation, access-credit schemes, and dynamic capacity-management pilots before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly labels prior art as unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is available closed-book."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repairs, problem change, causal-lever change, or revision evidence to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a structurally faithful, theatre-specific, reversible test of temporal capacity misallocation. Its main empirical dependency is whether apparently slack slots are genuinely substitutable, while novelty remains unestablished."}