{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__religious_studies_theology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"a28205faa3d9c0324b07d6f7ed067d0857d82b7a6e496b573ccc0f923251454f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The archive-access problem is independently intelligible, observable, and consequential without relying on the archetype analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Blanket approval restrictions form a plausible value-blocking wedge, while the proposal explicitly separates avoidable procedure from legitimate sacred, privacy, rights, and sovereignty protections."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk tiers, consolidated intake, parallel review, and bounded timelines directly target the hypothesized duplication, coarseness, unclear authority, and delay rather than merely improving researcher behavior."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is comprehensive, domain-specific, and internally consistent; selected mechanisms have distinct diagnostic, operational, evaluative, and safety functions, while unsuitable pricing and matching mechanisms are rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are explicitly bounded as hypotheses requiring local measurement, uncertainty is preserved, and no unsupported effect-size or prior-art claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, an ordinary-practice baseline, a credible rival explanation, observable outcomes, and separate failure conditions."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Custodian authority, consent, excluded actions, bounded scope, revocation, suspension triggers, and reversion to the prior pathway are clearly specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal maps the wedge, protected purpose, incidence, redesign, behavioral response, monitoring, and rollback structure with high precision."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It treats sacred knowledge as relational and authority-governed, preserves refusal as legitimate, and recognizes community sovereignty, contextual integrity, custodial labor, and extractive-use risk."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention plausibly reduces procedurally avoidable delay while preserving substantive review, though whether procedure is the binding cause remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every archetype component receives a concrete domain realization, with price-specific elements appropriately diagnosed as inapplicable rather than forced into the proposal."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses the strongest counterevidence, analogy break, rival explanation, rebound, privilege, burden shifting, classification gaming, and severe rights-based harms."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The wedge framing usefully separates substantive refusal from avoidable approval-path excess, although risk-tiered process reform is not itself a radically new conceptual move."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The audit, bounded pilot, comparison baseline, monitoring measures, and rollback triggers are actionable, but local thresholds and the comparative evaluation design still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible and custodian-controlled design offers meaningful learning and access benefits while containing exposure, though unauthorized disclosure could still create severe and partly irreversible harm."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate provides a strong, domain-faithful translation of deadweight-loss reduction while refusing to treat sacred or community-governed refusal as inefficiency. Its empirical claims are appropriately bounded, its causal conjecture is testable, and its authority and rollback safeguards support a bounded research program; novelty remains unevidenced."}