{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__rhetoric","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"33271a6c5cc44f142a72b1d6f08c469b6135c206f33be740aa6afbedc19961f4","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a domain-specific deliberative problem with observable manifestations, affected parties, and an objective independent of the archetype vocabulary."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping correctly treats total agenda time as legitimate scarcity and the rigid per-speaker allocation rule as the potentially avoidable wedge, while preserving the rule's protective purposes."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed equal floor, reclaimable time, and bounded extension pool directly alter the hypothesized allocation bottleneck, and the chain to a more complete record is explicit and falsifiable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Core components are translated coherently, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and the selected diagnostic, allocation, incidence, pilot, and sunset mechanisms retain their functional roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical propositions are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, prior art and authority uncertainty are disclosed, and no unsupported finding or fabricated source is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether meaningful truncation exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether flexible allocation improves the record without unacceptable burdens or disparities."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention is bounded, reversible, subject to authorized approval, and constrained by equal-access, viewpoint-neutrality, accessibility, duration, disparity, and rollback safeguards."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate precisely instantiates an avoidable allocation wedge nested within legitimate scarcity and protection rather than treating all speaking limits as waste."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses deliberative-rhetoric objects such as warrants, rebuttals, corrections, contestability, audience access, and the public record without reducing argumentative value to monetary exchange."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The allocation lever plausibly increases completed evidence and correction, but the link from coded completeness to decision quality remains uncertain and is appropriately left outside the core claim."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is comprehensive, functionally adapted, and candid about the inapplicability of a monetary price diagnostic."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts genuine scarcity, strategic padding, discretion bias, capture by fluent speakers, unreliable coding, and the possibility that additional detail has no decision value."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes the opposition between rigid equality and unrestricted discretion as a testable distinction between an equal access floor and avoidable allocation rigidity."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot, baseline, observables, expiry, and rollback make the intervention testable, though extension triggers, coding reliability procedures, and disparity thresholds still require operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversibility and hard safeguards limit exposure, while moderator bias, procedural complexity, and unequal capture remain material risks requiring close monitoring."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The synthesis is distinctive within the packet, but prior art is explicitly unsearched, so external novelty is not established."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The content-neutral eligibility rule for unfinished evidence or direct rebuttal is not yet operational enough to exclude disguised merit judgments.","repair":"Before implementation, preregister observable eligibility criteria, tie-breaking procedures, moderator scripts, audit rules, and examples covering ambiguous cases.","evidence_boundary":"The current packet supports structural plausibility but does not establish that moderators can apply the triggers reliably or without group and viewpoint disparities."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Argument-completion coding is load-bearing but its reliability is unverified.","repair":"Blind-code baseline and pilot records using a published rubric, report inter-rater reliability, and repeat the analysis under reasonable alternative completeness definitions.","evidence_boundary":"Completed argumentative units are proposed measures, not validated proxies for deliberative value or record quality."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Legal and procedural authority is bounded conceptually but remains unverified for any actual forum.","repair":"Condition the pilot on documented authority, accessibility review, public notice requirements, and an approved complaint and rollback process.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate names the proper authority structure but supplies no forum-specific legal or procedural verification."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"External novelty and relevant procedural precedents have not been assessed.","repair":"Search comparable hearing-time, rebuttal, pooled-time, and deliberative-procedure designs and use the findings to refine the baseline and rival interventions.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly reports unsearched prior art, so novelty claims must remain bounded."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repair to assess for improvement or supersession."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate offers a strong, domain-faithful allocation-wedge translation with an explicit causal lever, comprehensive safeguards, independent falsifiers, and a reversible test. Its principal unresolved boundary is empirical and operational rather than structural: eligibility coding, authority, effects, and novelty still require validation."}