{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__physics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3c48d461d3c97250143ad0b00237682cf27441960395bfcc2d3b12ff96fdead7","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The coexistence of usable vacant instrument time and blocked qualified demand is recognizable as a facility-allocation problem without relying on archetype terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a specific allocation-rule wedge, blocked beneficial use, expiring capacity, protected purposes, a matched redesign lever, and bounded monitoring."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Earlier release and authorized reassignment to prequalified teams can directly convert otherwise expiring usable slots into completed experiments, conditional on the proposed audit confirming the hypothesized overlap."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core components are translated coherently, price mechanisms are correctly excluded, allocation review is load-bearing, and assessment, incidence, pilot, monitoring, and rollback mechanisms retain their distinct functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical premises and effects are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, and the proposal makes no unsupported claim of demonstrated impact or novelty."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether rule-blocked usable capacity actually exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether reassignment improves completed use without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step is bounded to vacated slots and pre-cleared experiments, safety officers retain an independent veto, protected access is preserved, prohibited actions are explicit, and rollback triggers are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The wedge, blocked value, legitimate protections, incidence, targeted redesign, behavioral response, monitoring, and reversibility closely match the archetype."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Instrument compatibility, changeover constraints, scientific-merit review, safety clearance, and perishable experimental capacity ground the proposal in shared physics facilities, although the underlying scheduling pattern is broadly transferable."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and testable, but its effect depends on an unverified supply of technically usable vacancies and genuinely ready substitute experiments."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All relevant components receive concrete domain realizations, while the inapplicable price diagnostic is transparently marked and replaced by an allocation-rule diagnosis."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates nonfungible slots, physical unusability, existing informal substitution, strategic behavior, unequal short-notice readiness, workload, and scientific-quality concerns."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer separates unavoidable physical scarcity from avoidable post-award allocation loss and distinguishes reassignment authority from simple matching."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A prospective audit, prequalification criteria, bounded pilot, baseline comparison, observable outcomes, thresholds, expiry, and rollback make the proposal operationally testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible design limits exposure, though safety, staff burden, changeover loss, gaming, and unequal access could erase or reverse the expected benefit."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the intervention or framing is novel."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The magnitude and even existence of recoverable rule-blocked capacity remain unmeasured.","repair":"Perform the proposed prospective slot-history audit and distinguish technically usable vacancies from maintenance, preparation, staffing, safety, and changeover constraints before authorizing the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The packet properly presents the overlap between usable vacancies and ready demand as a hypothesis rather than an observed facility fact."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty or prior-art evidence is available.","repair":"Search facility scheduling policies and published operational studies before making any novelty claim or selecting comparison sites.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can assess the transfer's coherence but cannot establish originality."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"OPERATIONAL","reason":"The record is an original attempt and neither identifier changed; the remaining weakness concerns empirical validation and prior-art collection rather than the core problem or causal lever."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate presents a coherent, safely bounded transfer that targets avoidable allocation loss without confusing it with physical scarcity or relaxing substantive scientific and safety protections. Its main unresolved boundary is empirical: the facility audit must confirm that usable vacancies and ready qualified demand materially overlap."}