{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__public_administration_policy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"60d86846d6abc3758341fbaf23cac2a49e337c2b4843ec4c19d24f98794a0a87","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The permitting problem is specified through observable backlog, routing, rework, abandonment, and capacity conditions independently of the source archetype, with an explicit rival explanation and problem falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Uniform risk classification and serial routing form a specific avoidable wedge; delayed compliant activity and diverted specialist capacity instantiate blocked value, while protected scrutiny is preserved rather than treated as waste."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed risk-tiered pathway directly changes the identified classification and routing rule, and the causal chain distinguishes reduced procedural drag from weaker substantive review. Attribution remains empirical but is testable against the ordinary pathway."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core components are translated into domain artifacts, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, rejected mechanisms are coherently excluded, and the bounded pilot integrates safeguards, monitoring, expiry, and rollback."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, uncertainty is acknowledged, and no unsupported effect size, prevalence claim, or safety-equivalence claim is presented as established."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the uniform rule creates separable waste, while the intervention falsifier independently tests whether the redesigned pathway improves operations without unacceptable harm or displacement."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to delegated procedural discretion, legal review precedes enrollment, protected statutory requirements are excluded from alteration, affected parties are identified, and concrete halt, reversion, expiry, and appeal protections are included."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's complete structure: a diagnosed wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, matched redesign, incidence review, bounded implementation, and rebound monitoring."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The design reflects public-administration realities including delegated authority, statutory constraints, administrative records, notice, appeal, staff capacity, oversight, and third-party beneficiaries."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Classification and routing plausibly generate avoidable queues and capacity diversion, and the intervention targets both, but redundancy and safety equivalence remain hypotheses requiring comparative evidence."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Required components are converted into concrete permitting diagnostics, governance artifacts, safeguards, outcome measures, and decision rules; the irrelevant price diagnostic is explicitly bounded rather than silently omitted."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate addresses incompleteness, genuine complexity, scarce staffing, downstream displacement, third-party risk, and the transaction-cost rival, though those challenges have not yet been resolved empirically."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes a generic backlog as a potentially separable allocation wedge while preventing faster processing from becoming the sole objective."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The comparison pathway, population boundary, outcomes, expiry, and rollback are operationally clear, but lawful random assignment, tier validation, audit reliability, and preset thresholds still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A narrow, reversible pilot offers meaningful learning and capacity benefits with substantial safeguards, while rare severe harms and inequitable classification remain material residual risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet provides no evidence that the problem-lever composition is novel."}},"weighted_total":82.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The diagnosis and safety-preservation claim remain empirically unresolved.","repair":"Before implementation, validate the tiering model and preregister eligibility, operational outcomes, protected-outcome measures, displacement checks, decision thresholds, and subgroup analyses.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet establishes a coherent test design but supplies no observational or experimental evidence about redundancy, attributable delay, or safety equivalence."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal supplies no novelty or prior-art evidence.","repair":"Conduct a documented search of comparable risk-tiered permitting reforms and distinguish this composition by mechanism, governance boundary, outcome set, or falsification design.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly reports prior art as unsearched, so no novelty inference is warranted."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no revision from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, independently falsifiable application of deadweight-loss reduction to permit routing. Its bounded authority, protected-purpose safeguards, rival explanation, and rollback design support advancement to empirical and prior-art research."}