{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__sport_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"0955b2eae27d4cbe79c3a7c6f4f049237dcabcc5c195d236a216c81ff338eca9","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The laboratory-allocation problem is independently recognizable through concurrent unmet qualified demand and unused compatible capacity, without depending on the source analogy for its definition."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Fixed quotas and nontransferable reservations form a specific wedge; blocked qualified activity, protected purposes, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and rollback correspond closely to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Timed release removes quota lock-in, while constraint-aware matching connects released capacity to feasible qualified requests. The chain is conditional on demonstrating genuine compatibility rather than nominal calendar vacancy."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is comprehensive, and the load-bearing diagnostic, allocation-review, and matching mechanisms have distinct necessary roles. Rejected pricing mechanisms are excluded for coherent reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effects, feasibility, and prior art are explicitly unverified. Claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, uncertainty is preserved, and no unsupported effectiveness result is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether allocation-attributable stranded compatible capacity exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether release and matching improve outcomes without breaching protected gates."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded across facility, safety, research, workload, and access governance. Exclusions, protected floors, consent limits, halt conditions, and baseline reversion constrain the pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the full distortion-reduction structure, including the wedge, blocked value, protected constraint, incidence, bounded redesign, monitoring, and reversibility."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Equipment compatibility, staffing, calibration, recovery, consent, protocol validity, workload, confidentiality, and group access are treated as substantive sport-science constraints rather than generic scheduling details."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and identifies the allocation rule as the lever, but its key premise—material overlap between qualified demand and genuinely compatible idle capacity—remains unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every archetype component receives a concrete domain realization, and the price diagnostic is appropriately retained as a rival check rather than forced into the intervention."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts false idle capacity, noninterchangeability, genuine scarcity, strategic booking, staff overload, protocol degradation, privacy, and distributional loss."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes apparent laboratory shortage as a potentially separable allocation wedge while preserving legitimate scarcity and governance constraints."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The audit, shadow allocation, bounded pilot, comparator outcomes, and rollback path are actionable, though materiality thresholds and gate calculations still require preregistration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is scoped, reversible, and potentially valuable, with strong safeguards; expected benefit remains conditional on local demand-capacity overlap and manageable implementation burden."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The existence and magnitude of allocation-attributable stranded capacity have not been established locally.","repair":"Execute the proposed audit and shadow allocation, classifying maintenance, setup, staffing, recovery, protocol, and protected-priority constraints before authorizing live reassignment.","evidence_boundary":"The current record supports a testable structural hypothesis, not a claim that the wedge is prevalent or materially costly."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Pilot continuation and halt concepts are clear, but several materiality and deterioration thresholds are not operationally fixed.","repair":"Preregister outcome definitions, compatibility rules, protected-group access floors, workload limits, attribution procedures, and renewal criteria before the live pilot.","evidence_boundary":"No conclusion about safety, equity, utilization benefit, or scientific validity should be drawn until those rules are applied to comparative observations."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty and overlap with existing facility scheduling practices are unknown.","repair":"Review relevant scheduling, laboratory-capacity, and institutional allocation prior art before asserting novelty or investing in bespoke infrastructure.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate appropriately reports its prior-art status as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The proposal is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, falsifiable, and safely bounded translation. Its principal remaining uncertainty is empirical: the local allocation wedge, effect magnitude, feasibility, and novelty must be established through the specified audit, shadow test, pilot, and prior-art review."}