{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__psychology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"10c80325025d58a0c910a51cc4e77bf39582512816aac410a7f2ed2f65e8ee3b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The independently recognizable problem is disproportionate ethics-review delay for minimal-risk behavioral research, with observable abandonment, rework, and capacity consequences."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps a specific procedural wedge, blocked beneficial activity, protected ethical purpose, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback without treating participant protections as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk-tiered intake, parallel routing, response windows, and escalation directly target the posited routing and queue mechanism, while the baseline and nearest rival distinguish workflow effects from staffing or application-quality effects."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core and safeguarding components are translated coherently, selected mechanisms have explicit causal or operational roles, and price, matching, quota, and sunset mechanisms are rejected for stated structural reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unverified prevalence, attribution, and effects are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences; prior art is marked unsearched, and no unsupported empirical magnitude or citation is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pathway audit can independently falsify the claimed problem, while the randomized workflow pilot can separately falsify the intervention through timeliness, workload-transfer, equity, and protection outcomes. Exact decision margins remain subject to preregistration."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves authorized final review, excludes elevated-risk cases and automated final decisions, identifies institutional authority limits, and supplies immediate pause and ordinary-routing rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's central distinction between avoidable procedural distortion and legitimate protection and carries it through diagnosis, redesign, incidence review, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Consent, deception, privacy, vulnerability, debriefing, and behavioral-protocol features are domain-grounded, although the main intervention operates in research governance rather than psychological behavior itself."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed workflow changes plausibly reduce delay caused by serial and coarse routing, and rival explanations are testable, but the local prevalence and magnitude of that causal pathway remain unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is unusually complete, identifies the price diagnostic as incompatible, and gives each adapted component a concrete domain realization."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states strong counterevidence, an analogy break, separate falsifiers, strategic responses, downstream workload displacement, selection limits, and participant-protection failure modes."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing usefully separates procedural burden from substantive ethical scrutiny and makes blocked research, reviewer capacity, incidence, and protected rights jointly reviewable, though risk-tiered review is not shown to be a novel reframing."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The audit and bounded randomized pilot are operationally concrete and reversible, but exact eligibility validation, decision margins, and adequate assessment of uncommon protection failures still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains in timeliness and reviewer capacity are credible and exposure is tightly bounded, while misclassification and rare participant harms prevent a stronger risk-adjusted judgment without evidence."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so originality or distinctiveness is unsupported."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The bounded pilot may be too small or brief to support a protection-quality noninferiority claim when consequential failures are uncommon.","repair":"Treat the initial trial as a feasibility and process-effect test, define validated leading protection indicators, and require staged evidence accumulation before permanent adoption.","evidence_boundary":"Do not infer safety equivalence from an absence of rare adverse events in a small pilot."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal provides no evidence that the workflow or its framing is distinct from existing expedited ethics-review practice.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of ethics-review regulations, institutional expedited pathways, risk-tiering studies, and workflow pilots before making a novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"Until that review is completed, novelty remains unknown rather than absent or established."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs to assess; neither identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, domain-grounded, causally testable, and unusually careful about participant rights, authority, rival explanations, and rollback. Its principal unresolved limits are empirical calibration, rare-harm assessment, and unsearched prior art, none of which defeats the closed-book structural evaluation."}