{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__behavioral_economics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"7b3371c80c5ee5837ea9b11dfba8e6e987bfcd28165b33ed79ebc1aa0cdc4810","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The marketplace cascade problem is independently specified through actors, observables, harms, objectives, and domain-specific falsifiers rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The lagged behavioral transformation, coupled product-group directions, modal gains, intervention coordinates, residuals, drift, and interpretation limits correspond coherently to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Descriptive modal estimation is explicitly separated from causal identification, and the proposed randomized display-strength reduction directly tests the claimed popularity-signal leverage against both status quo and a uniform intervention."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every named component has a domain realization, selected mechanisms have distinct functions and removal consequences, rejected mechanisms are justified, and non-normality and coupling are handled without conflating singular and invariant directions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and causal claims are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, uncertainty and confounding are explicit, and no unsupported result is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet supplies distinct problem and intervention falsifiers with observable comparisons, along with a structural failure condition that can reject the modal formulation itself."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is identified, the initial intervention is reversible and narrowly scoped, affected parties and exclusions are explicit, independent review is required, and halt and rollback triggers cover buyer, seller, model, and drift harms."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal translates the full invariant-mode logic into an explicit local behavioral transition with traceable modes, gains, controls, residual checks, and validity limits."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Sequential imitation, information suppression, quality responsiveness, seller exposure, experimentation, and welfare tradeoffs are expressed in behavioral-economic terms without treating people as literal mechanical objects."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The randomized comparison can identify whether displayed popularity contributes to the candidate cascade, though policy reactivity, omitted causes, and mode rotation leave important empirical uncertainty."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and action-linked, including often-missed coupling, local-window, residual, gap, drift, and interpretation safeguards."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly anticipates confounding, nonlinear endogeneity, ill-conditioning, small spectral gaps, subgroup harm, and failure of mode identity, with corresponding tests or stop rules."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The modal view reveals coupled demand amplification that aggregate conversion and isolated product metrics could miss, while yielding a selective alternative to indiscriminate removal of social information."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A retrospective fit, shadow evaluation, and reversible randomized pilot are operationally specified, but implementation still depends on adequate state measurement, conditioning, statistical power, and stable local estimation."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot offers potentially useful targeting with reversible exposure, yet seller redistribution and subgroup welfare risks require stringent preregistered monitoring and review."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book evidence establishes novelty relative to behavioral cascade detection, dynamic treatment targeting, or marketplace ranking research."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing cascade-detection and marketplace intervention methods is unsupported.","repair":"Conduct a documented prior-art review and state which combination of modal estimation, exposure targeting, randomized validation, and drift governance is genuinely differentiated.","evidence_boundary":"The packet discloses an unsearched prior-art status, and closed-book evaluation cannot supply the missing comparison."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The empirical feasibility of recovering a stable, well-conditioned behavioral mode remains unresolved.","repair":"Preregister identifiability, conditioning, gap, reconstruction, power, and mode-rotation criteria before authorizing the randomized pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The proposal supplies appropriate diagnostics and failure rules but contains no observed estimation or pilot results."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, so no improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears the reject-first evaluation as a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safely bounded research proposal. Its main unresolved weakness is absent novelty evidence, while empirical modal stability and causal effectiveness remain appropriately designated for prospective testing."}