{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__disaster_management","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"98562832e07d38a3809817a034c0bbcfea8b6b6c1bdbd0ad5243a0634f44eee6","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently stated as hidden coupled deterioration in disaster response rather than as a restatement of modal mathematics."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transition scope, state representation, modes, gains, selection rules, residual checks, drift controls, and interpretation limits correspond coherently to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a plausible leverage path from detecting amplifying service-disruption patterns to comparing feasible damping packages, while treating intervention efficacy as a testable hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component is translated, load-bearing mechanisms have distinct roles, incompatible mechanisms are rejected with reasons, and non-normality and coupling limitations are preserved."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unverified repeatability, predictive advantage, intervention efficacy, and prior-art status are explicitly bounded rather than presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether hidden recurrent combinations add warning value, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether modal rankings improve outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with incident command, initial use is retrospective or tabletop shadow evaluation, prohibited actions are explicit, and withdrawal conditions restore ordinary procedures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full invariant-mode logic from coupled transformation through modal action, residual visibility, drift monitoring, and bounded interpretation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Actors, operational data, command authority, regime shifts, service inequities, and disaster-specific nonlinearities are handled credibly, though real incident data may not support stable estimation windows."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Targeting coupled amplifying directions could outperform component-wise allocation, but model-based sensitivity does not itself establish that resource packages causally damp real cascades."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, internally consistent, and traceable to mechanisms and governance rules."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonstationarity, non-normality, mode swapping, sparse reporting, structured residuals, inequity, authority misuse, and comparison with credible rivals."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the operational question from which service looks worst to which coupled degradation direction is growing and controllable."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded shadow evaluation with held-out prediction and rival comparison is executable, although estimating conditioned local operators from sparse incident records may be difficult."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Shadow-only deployment, withholding gates, and rollback controls constrain harm while preserving meaningful learning value; biased data and resource-diversion risks remain material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing disaster cascade, resilience, or dynamic-mode methods."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal supplies no prior-art evidence distinguishing this transfer from existing dynamic cascade and infrastructure-resilience modeling.","repair":"During deep research, compare the claimed combination of local transition modes, consequence-weighted intervention sensitivity, and withdrawal governance against the closest disaster-management methods.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports only an unsearched novelty status and cannot establish external precedence."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Resource-package sensitivity is model-derived and may not correspond to causal effects in an adaptive incident system.","repair":"Preregister blinded tabletop or retrospective comparisons that test outcome effects against both ordinary allocation and the nearest rule-based cascade rival.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate provides a valid falsifier and safe test design but no observed intervention-effect evidence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior candidate or registered repairs; the problem and causal-lever identifiers therefore have no revision-level change to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears the reject-first gates through a faithful structural transfer, complete mechanism handling, separate falsifiers, and strong shadow-mode authority controls. Its main unresolved weakness is external novelty evidence, while empirical effectiveness remains appropriately framed as the subject of deep research rather than as an established claim."}