{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__statistics_experimental_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f4d14f6f676f52838adcbccfed50201e2d75261d5a3090add8a6f727deb06533","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently stated as inefficient multiplicity allocation under a fixed familywise error budget, with domain-native observables, consequences, and falsifiers."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the wedge, blocked value, protected constraint, incidence, bounded redesign, and monitoring structure without treating alpha as literal money or property."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Outcome-independent weighting changes the binding allocation rule while preserving the error cap, and the proposed comparisons can determine whether that change improves decision-relevant power."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain translations, load-bearing mechanisms supply diagnosis and reallocation, and incompatible pricing, matching, and approval mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Claims are marked as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is explicitly unsearched, empirical magnitude is not asserted, and validation is assigned to simulation, archived replay, and prospective evaluation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether multiplicity allocation is binding, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether weighted allocation improves the specified outcome without unacceptable losses."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to accountable scientific, statistical, ethical, and regulatory governance; the first step is non-live; prohibited actions, halt triggers, and reversion are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely preserves the archetype's full logic: an avoidable allocation wedge is separated from a legitimate cap, incidence is exposed, and repair is bounded and reversible."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Weighted multiplicity allocation, gatekeeping, familywise error control, power, dependence, prespecification, and simulation are used in their proper experimental-design roles."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The causal chain correctly distinguishes reallocating an error budget from enlarging it and tests the claimed gain against an unchanged sample and verified error control."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed component is translated into a concrete statistical artifact, safeguard, diagnostic, decision rule, or evaluation step with no material omission."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts symmetric priorities, nonbinding allocation, gaming, institutional bias, dependence misspecification, interpretive complexity, and protected-comparison losses with meaningful tests and stops."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The deadweight-loss frame usefully joins allocation efficiency to protection, incidence, compensation, and reversibility, although weighted testing and gatekeeping are already native statistical ideas."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The baseline, rival, simulation design, archived replay, bounded prospective application, monitoring variables, falsifiers, and rollback conditions make the proposal directly testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The approach could improve decision-relevant information without additional participant exposure, but biased priorities, gaming, complexity, and reduced coverage remain consequential risks despite safeguards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports prior art as unsearched and supplies no evidence that the proposal is distinct from existing weighted multiple-testing or gatekeeping methods."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to established weighted multiple-testing and gatekeeping methods is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and identify any claimed contribution at the level of objective, safeguard architecture, incidence analysis, or evaluation design.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural and methodological evaluation but explicitly provides no prior-art evidence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a domain-faithful, causally testable transfer with strong safeguards. Its only clear evidentiary weakness is unestablished novelty, which warrants deep prior-art research but does not undermine the closed-book structural judgment."}