{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__speech_language_pathology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f1ff9e02e440a458549072e94e64873b9bf0d44a54201fe500a364f93b65ebb5","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate isolates authorization-attributable interruption of otherwise indicated therapy from clinician scarcity, attendance failure, and general access problems."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The approval and visit-cap rules form a recognizable wedge between available indicated care and delivered sessions, while the proposal explicitly preserves the rules' legitimate utilization and safety purposes."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk-tiered bounded continuation directly changes the diagnosed authorization rule rather than merely accelerating the existing process, and the nearest-rival comparison makes that leverage distinction explicit."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All relevant archetype components are translated into domain-specific functions, incompatible price mechanisms are rejected, and omitted compensation is justified without dropping access or workload safeguards."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effect claims are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported citation or asserted result is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether authorization is actually responsible for gaps, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the redesigned pathway improves continuity without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to the rule-owning payer with clinical and access governance, the first step is bounded and reversible, and exclusions and rollback conditions protect safety, consent, equity, and scarce capacity."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal maps the avoidable wedge, protected purpose, blocked value, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback loop with unusually complete correspondence."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention reflects speech-language and swallowing practice, including clinical appropriateness, swallowing escalation, treatment progress, caregiver burden, and therapy-capacity displacement; operational eligibility criteria still require local validation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Removing duplicate continuation approval for reliably identified stable cases could reduce administrative gaps, but the effect depends on authorization being a material cause and on risk-tiering accurately separating procedural drag from substantive review."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Relevant components receive concrete domain realizations, price-specific components are correctly treated as incompatible, and the nonapplicable monetary-compensation component is explicitly distinguished from access safeguards."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts supply shortage, necessary reassessment, weak benefit, nonattendance, pooled-resource limits, gaming, demand rebound, and crowd-out, with counterevidence and failure conditions capable of defeating the proposal."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes generic administrative burden as a potentially avoidable allocation wedge whose procedural portion must be separated from clinically protective review, yielding a more discriminating intervention."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded clinic pilot, usual-review comparator, observable continuity outcomes, subgroup reporting, sunset, and rollback path make testing feasible, though eligibility definitions and quantitative decision thresholds remain unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The scoped and reversible design offers meaningful continuity and administrative benefits while containing safety and capacity risks, but favorable value remains conditional on local wedge prevalence and limited crowd-out."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports prior art as unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The existence and magnitude of authorization-attributable gaps in the proposed setting are not yet demonstrated.","repair":"Run the proposed pathway audit before enrollment and report gap causes, available-capacity status, clinical indication, and subgroup incidence using prespecified definitions.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly labels the relevant prevalence claim as a hypothesis; the packet contains no observed local baseline."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Pilot eligibility and halt conditions are conceptually clear but not operationally measurable as written.","repair":"Prespecify the stability criteria, safety flags, progress criteria, outcome denominators, subgroup analyses, crowd-out measure, and decision thresholds before implementation.","evidence_boundary":"The packet names the variables and rollback categories but supplies neither validated classification performance nor quantitative thresholds."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing utilization-management practices is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art and practice review focused on risk-tiered therapy continuation, visit-cap exceptions, and authorization waivers before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so novelty must remain unclaimed."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no claimed conceptual or operational revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a strong, domain-specific transfer with a direct causal lever, preserved clinical safeguards, distinct falsifiers, and a reversible test. Its principal remaining limitations are empirical validation, operational threshold specification, and absent novelty evidence."}