{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__robotics_automation","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"aba18ca34b2e5ba8c93106f23bbe089f15dfb2f2a081cc1f7aa8c956fa6e01af","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The robot-change-control problem is independently intelligible, domain-specific, and separable from the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The uniform validation rule is mapped to a value-blocking wedge while substantive safety protection, incidence, boundaries, monitoring, and rollback remain explicit."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk classification and independently checked invariants directly target duplicated validation and delay rather than merely adding review capacity."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is comprehensive, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and selected mechanisms retain their original diagnostic, process, safety, and test roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unverified workflow and outcome claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, the protected-purpose claims are bounded, and no empirical result is presented as established."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the coarse-rule wedge exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether differential validation improves operations without deterioration."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded to internal workflow, mandatory requirements remain controlling, hazardous change classes are excluded, and explicit halt and restoration conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full wedge-to-redesign structure, including protected purpose, incidence, behavioral response, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal uses credible robotics safety and change-control concepts, but the prevalence and separability of the targeted edit class remain site-dependent hypotheses."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Differential validation could remove duplicated work while retaining protection, although hidden physical and control coupling remains a material uncertainty requiring verification."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Components are translated into concrete robotics artifacts and governance actions, with nonapplicable price components explicitly identified rather than forced."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts nonlocal coupling, strategic change splitting, reviewer pressure, tail risk, mandatory requirements, and worker-rights concerns with meaningful falsifiers and stops."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes blanket revalidation as a potentially mixed constraint whose procedural and protective portions can be tested separately."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A retrospective audit, predefined edit class, invariant checks, baseline comparison, monitored pilot, expiry, and halt criteria make the proposal operationally testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Recoverable availability may be meaningful and exposure is tightly bounded, but low-frequency severe harm and uncertain invariant completeness constrain the expected case."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The candidate provides no prior-art evidence for the risk-tiered validation design.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, compare the proposed taxonomy, invariant checking, and differential validation workflow with established industrial robot change-control and functional-safety practices.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation can establish internal coherence and testability, but not novelty or external precedent."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no supplied repair history."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, safety-bounded, and falsifiable application of distortion reduction to robot change control. Its empirical premise remains explicitly hypothetical and should be tested through the proposed audit and bounded pilot; novelty remains unsupported."}