{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__innovation_entrepreneurship","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"5554daa0fc05221bf5d888362611e448695c6f1db32640e3ad0d8f5783e03392","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Cross-metric decision thrashing, runway waste, and recurring priority reversals define a venture problem independently of modal language."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal explicitly maps a bounded state transition, approximate invariant directions, modal responses, intervention coordinates, residuals, and drift governance into the venture setting."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed leverage runs from coupled-state estimation through gated sensitivity analysis to a reversible portfolio change, with a holdout and a nonmodal rival separating description from useful intervention."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have removal consequences, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with their scope."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, and conditioning, uncertainty, residual, gap, drift, and regime limitations are exposed rather than concealed."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem diagnosis and the intervention each have distinct observable falsifiers, including predictive comparisons, resampling stability, predicted state movement, rival performance, and safety-bounded outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to accountable venture roles, customer-impacting action retains existing oversight, the initial action is capped and reversible, exclusions are explicit, and rollback conditions cover model and stakeholder harms."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer preserves the archetype's transformation, mode, gain, selection, intervention, residual, drift, and scope-contract structure without reducing it to generic dimensionality reduction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The venture state, regime boundaries, actors, objective, controls, and operational constraints are concrete, though many ventures may lack a sufficiently stable and comparable history."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Sensitivity estimates alone remain descriptive, but the proposal appropriately subjects their actionable implication to a capped holdout intervention against a strong rival."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All supplied components are translated with coherent statuses and domain-specific realizations, including coupling, linearization, spectral-gap, and interpretation controls."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonstationarity, endogeneity, reflexivity, sparse data, ill-conditioning, near-degeneracy, structured residuals, metric gaming, and regime change."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It redirects attention from isolated KPI movements to persistent coupled patterns and makes hidden cross-metric amplification an explicit decision object."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow period, preregistered comparisons, reversible reallocation, holdout, halt rules, and observable endpoints form an executable test, subject to adequate historical data."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The initial exposure is bounded and reversible while potential learning and runway benefits are meaningful; residual privacy, inference, and opportunity-cost risks remain."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so closed-book evaluation cannot establish novelty."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and overlap with existing startup analytics, system-identification, and control-oriented decision methods are unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review before making novelty claims, while preserving the current test as a structural and empirical conjecture.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched, and closed-book assessment cannot resolve that uncertainty."}],"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":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-bounded, falsifiable transfer with unusually strong residual, drift, rival, authority, and rollback controls. Its principal unresolved weakness is novelty evidence rather than fit or test design."}