{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__veterinary_medicine","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"b9345052c19747bc44e5fb50010a2b940f55e7bb940871bd0c9e3984e41054ae","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies an independently recognizable veterinary scheduling problem: safely usable operating-room capacity may remain idle while clinically compatible cases wait because of service ownership and release rules."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's wedge, blocked value, protected purpose, incidence, targeted redesign, behavioral response, bounded implementation, monitoring, and rollback structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Conditional release directly changes the hypothesized allocation constraint, while the audit and rival explanation distinguish that constraint from true shortages of staff, equipment, recovery capacity, or emergency reserve."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Load-bearing and supporting mechanisms have explicit roles and counterfactual-removal tests; pricing and unrelated process mechanisms are rejected with domain-appropriate reasons, and incompatible components are not forced into the transfer."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effect claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, novelty remains unclaimed, uncertainty is disclosed, and the proposal requires local audit evidence rather than presenting unsupported outcomes as established facts."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether releasable capacity and compatible delayed demand actually overlap, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether conditional release improves allocation without unacceptable harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Clinical governance authority, protected reserves, compatibility requirements, excluded actions, monitoring triggers, and restoration of prior scheduling rules are specified for a bounded pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates avoidable quantity-allocation loss while preserving legitimate clinical constraints, incidence review, reversibility, and monitoring."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Species compatibility, urgency, anesthesia, infection control, consent, recovery capacity, staffing, emergency access, welfare, and equity are treated as load-bearing veterinary constraints."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and explicitly conditional on allocation being binding, but the existence and magnitude of safely reallocable capacity remain unverified locally."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every relevant archetype component receives a concrete domain realization, while the price-specific component is correctly marked incompatible."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses true scarcity, unusable nominal capacity, gaming, urgency inflation, staff overload, emergency displacement, inequitable access, revenue capture, and unrepresentative pilot cases."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes simultaneous delay and idleness as a potentially repairable entitlement-allocation wedge rather than assuming that expansion is the only response."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The audit, bounded pilot, observables, baseline, expiry, and rollback path are actionable, though local release parameters and trigger thresholds still require prospective specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible, clinically screened pilot offers meaningful welfare and capacity upside with contained exposure, but clinical and distributional harms require close governance."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, and no evidence establishes novelty in veterinary operating-room allocation."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The local prevalence and magnitude of the hypothesized allocation wedge are unknown.","repair":"Apply prospective clinical-usability criteria to timestamped scheduling data and quantify recurring overlap between releasable staffed time and compatible delayed cases before authorization.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a falsifiable diagnosis and audit plan but no local audit results or comparative outcome evidence."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Release deadlines, compatibility rules, and halt thresholds are described conceptually rather than fixed operationally.","repair":"Pre-register the release deadline, screening responsibility, priority hierarchy, safety and access bounds, attribution procedure, and restart authority before the pilot begins.","evidence_boundary":"These parameters depend on local case mix, staffing, governance, and baseline variation and cannot be inferred closed-book."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repairs, and neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-specific, falsifiable, and safely bounded transfer. Its empirical claims remain appropriately hypothetical, and the absence of novelty evidence does not undermine the proposed local causal test."}