{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__gender_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"8be3b72bdef1ff958ec68147cabe1ba54ecea21b809d9f9aff02fe8466cedcbe","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The organizational blind spot exists independently of modal analysis: separate indicators can obscure jointly evolving harms, and comparison with prespecified intersectional models could confirm or refute that problem."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal explicitly defines a bounded transition operator, state vector, approximate modes, gains, selection criteria, residuals, drift, coupling, and interpretation limits, preserving the archetype's essential structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Descriptive modes are not treated as causal proof. Sensitivity analysis generates a procedural hypothesis, while a consented comparator pilot and direct harm outcomes test whether the proposed lever actually changes outcomes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have counterfactual roles, unsuitable mechanisms are rejected for specific reasons, and uncertainty and residual checks remain integral."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, empirical validity is not asserted, and reporting, attrition, coding, conditioning, and subgroup residual threats are exposed."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have separate observable falsifiers: rival models can defeat the claimed diagnostic advantage, while the pilot can independently defeat the procedural intervention."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to aggregate procedural changes with affected-party representation, privacy review, consent, reversible deployment, explicit prohibited uses, and outcome-based halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transformation, modes, gains, stability partition, intervention map, residuals, coupling, drift, gap, and local-validity contract form a coherent end-to-end modal design."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal respects reflexivity, intersectionality, contested meanings, reporting asymmetries, qualitative counterevidence, and the danger of reifying statistical patterns as identities."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The observational model only proposes intervention targets, and causal support is reserved for a bounded comparator pilot with direct outcomes; remaining vulnerability comes from confounding and institutional reflexivity."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named components receive specific domain realizations, including operational thresholds, indeterminate classifications, subgroup residual checks, coupling records, and retirement rules."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses measurement shifts, differential reporting, attrition, small-cell privacy, rare-harm compression, model gaming, mode instability, and disagreement between modal and direct outcomes."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes monitoring from isolated headline indicators to bounded joint trajectories while preserving raw and qualitative evidence and avoiding person-level classification."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"Shadow analysis and a reversible cluster-level pilot are executable in principle, but require sufficiently comparable longitudinal data, adequate subgroup sample sizes, and credible procedural controls."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential early detection and better-targeted prevention are meaningful, while privacy, reification, and resource-diversion risks are substantially bounded but not eliminated."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet supplies no comparative evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal establishes no novelty relative to existing intersectional longitudinal, latent-state, dynamic-factor, or organizational-harm monitoring approaches.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison and identify any distinctive contribution in problem formulation, mechanism translation, safeguards, or falsification design.","evidence_boundary":"No novelty conclusion can be made from the closed-book packet because prior-art status is explicitly unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no revision claims to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears the reject-first gates through unusually complete structural translation, domain-aware interpretation limits, separate diagnostic and intervention falsifiers, and strong aggregate-use safeguards. Its principal unresolved weakness is lack of novelty evidence, which does not undermine the internally testable conjecture."}