{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__security_intelligence","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ce41813f6bf33c63072b7dd52a458b20e1eef57e0f69e7bedf411dce0c5d3427","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The release-review backlog is defined independently of the archetype, names observable workflow effects, and distinguishes workflow design from staffing, discovery, and substantive-review rivals."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The uniform review rule is a plausible value-blocking wedge, the blocked exchange is authorized dissemination within a decision window, and the redesign preserves the rule's legitimate protective purposes."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The chain from coarse serial review through queueing to expired intelligence value is coherent, and risk-tiering, parallel independent checks, and metadata reuse directly target the proposed source of avoidable delay."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is unusually complete, incompatible mechanisms are rejected for domain-specific reasons, and load-bearing mechanisms have meaningful counterfactual-removal tests."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical existence, magnitude, and novelty are explicitly bounded as unverified; claims are labeled as hypotheses, inferences, or corpus-grounded protections, and the proposed shadow study is designed to resolve the central evidence gap."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem can fail through absence of attributable queueing or burden mismatch, while the intervention can separately fail through lack of timeliness benefit or unacceptable increases in security and equity harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first action is bounded and reversible, mandatory reviews and sensitive materials are excluded, relevant authority holders are named, and disclosure, exposure, bypass, and auditability failures trigger pause or rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's central distinction between avoidable distortion and legitimate protection while targeting a specific allocation and approval wedge."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, authorities, protected equities, adversarial risks, handling constraints, and irreversible disclosure consequences are rendered specifically for intelligence-release practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed workflow mechanisms plausibly reduce procedural delay, but whether avoidable routing rather than substantive review or reviewer scarcity is binding remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component is translated, adapted, or explicitly found incompatible, with coherent links among diagnosis, redesign, incidence, monitoring, authority, and rollback."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts tier-shopping, underclassification, demand rebound, audit failure, adversary learning, concentrated harm, and the asymmetric irreversibility of disclosure."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Separating protective equity review from uniform routing converts a generic request for faster dissemination into a safeguard-preserving test of a potentially avoidable wedge."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow study, matched baseline, bounded pilot, metrics, exclusions, and rollback path are actionable, although quantitative continuation and harm thresholds remain to be established from baseline evidence."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversibility and hard exclusions constrain exposure while preserving meaningful potential gains, but disclosure and source harms can remain asymmetric and irreversible."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The binding source of delay has not yet been empirically established.","repair":"Use the authorized shadow study to decompose elapsed time into substantive review, queueing, routing, rework, handoffs, and capacity shortage before activating altered routing.","evidence_boundary":"The packet presents the backlog and burden mismatch as hypotheses and supplies no observed workflow dataset."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Continuation and harm thresholds are described but not operationally fixed.","repair":"Derive and precommit tier-specific timeliness, serious-error, near-miss, bypass, auditability, and concentrated-harm thresholds before the live pilot.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values require baseline rates and authorized domain judgment unavailable in the closed packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing intelligence-release practices is unknown.","repair":"Conduct an authorized prior-art and internal-policy review without exposing classified workflow details beyond the permitted boundary.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly records prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem, causal-lever, or repair record against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-specific, falsifiable, and safely bounded translation suitable for deep research. Its central empirical premise and novelty remain unverified, but those limits are disclosed and addressed through an authorized evidence-generating first step rather than guessed."}