{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__tech_ethics_ai_governance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"4b3e3e460269aeb94eeb727c9d50874bf13db91f9e1b17098c2bf9a2ec9aceb0","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines a domain-specific governance problem independently of the archetype and does not merely restate deadweight-loss terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The coarse approval rule, blocked beneficial changes, protected oversight purpose, scoped redesign, incidence review, and monitoring loop correspond closely to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Risk-tiering can plausibly reduce separable procedural delay while retaining substantive checks, and the candidate identifies the conditions under which that leverage would fail."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is comprehensive, incompatible mechanisms are rejected for stated reasons, and the load-bearing mechanisms form a coherent diagnosis-to-pilot chain."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"Claims about queue composition, avoidable delay, hazard discovery, and recoverable value are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, but no case-level evidence or prior-art assessment is supplied to establish them."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct observable falsifiers covering absent delay, substantive hazard detection, weak operational gains, displaced delay, gaming, and protected-outcome deterioration."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to the authorized governance body, non-waivable controls and high-impact uses are excluded, and the pilot includes escalation, suspension, record preservation, and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's central distinction between avoidable distortion and legitimate protection throughout diagnosis, redesign, and monitoring."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation directly addresses AI-governance concerns involving uncertain harms, cumulative changes, rights, subgroup effects, contestability, and non-waivable oversight."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal sequence is coherent and identifies credible behavioral responses, but its applicability depends on unverified separation of procedural drag from substantive scrutiny."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every relevant component has a concrete domain realization, while the price-specific component is correctly identified as incompatible."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest domain-specific objections and states clear analogy breaks, failure conditions, and rollback triggers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing usefully shifts debate from oversight versus speed to measuring and selectively removing procedural drag while preserving protection."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The retrospective audit, bounded eligibility criteria, ordinary-review comparator, monitoring measures, sunset, and halt conditions support a practical test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Bounded scope and reversibility limit exposure, although classification mistakes and cumulative effects could still create consequential rights or safety harms."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The existence and materiality of a separable procedural wedge remain unverified.","repair":"Collect case-level workflow evidence separating queue time, redundant handling, and rework from substantive review time, and measure delay, abandonment, and hazards detected by each step for prospectively eligible cases.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports a plausible hypothesis and test design, not a finding that uniform review currently destroys recoverable value."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The candidate provides no novelty or prior-art evidence.","repair":"Compare the proposed risk-tiered, expiring review path with documented AI-governance review models and identify any distinctive mechanism composition or testable contribution.","evidence_boundary":"No inference about novelty can be made from an explicitly unsearched record."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong structural and domain translation with explicit safeguards, adversarial tests, and a bounded pilot. Closed-book judgment cannot confirm the empirical wedge or novelty because the necessary case evidence and prior-art assessment are absent."}