{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__logistics_supply_chain","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ecaa70ffa5103704f60436936c193bf82e4e4ca751a0c79394d3cd1fc4dded26","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The replenishment-oscillation problem is independently stated in supply-chain terms and remains meaningful without the archetype vocabulary."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The review-cycle transition, coupled state, modal basis and gains, intervention map, residual checks, drift monitoring, and scope contract correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal links bounded replenishment-policy parameters to risky dynamic modes and then to oscillation and service outcomes, while treating the link as a testable hypothesis rather than established causation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All named components receive domain realizations, selected mechanisms have distinct roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with their limitations."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and causal uncertainty is explicitly labeled; novelty is unsearched, no prior-art claim is asserted, and conditioning, residual, holdout, and numerical-fragility limits are disclosed."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers distinguish absence of endogenous coupled oscillation from failure of the proposed damping intervention, including guardrail violations."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step is non-executing, live changes require accountable operational approval, excluded actions are explicit, and halt criteria preserve current policies."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full transformation-to-modes-to-gains-to-intervention-to-residual-governance structure and makes modal analysis indispensable to the diagnosis."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"State variables, policy controls, constraints, service outcomes, ownership, and operational safeguards are specific to multi-echelon replenishment practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The feedback-and-damping account is coherent and testable, but a fitted local operator and replay sensitivity cannot by themselves establish that policy changes cause the observed modes."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component is translated into an operational supply-chain object, threshold, diagnostic, or governance rule without conflating variance, centrality, singular directions, and invariant modes."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates exogenous shocks, nonlinearity, non-normality, weak stationarity, mode swapping, aggregation harm, structured residuals, and rival explanations with explicit rejection conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts intervention from isolated exception metrics and local parameter tuning to coupled feedback directions that may be hidden in coordinate-level monitoring."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow replay, holdout comparison, guardrails, and halt conditions are feasible, although operator estimation, identification assumptions, and threshold calibration remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"A non-executing pilot offers useful diagnostic and policy-screening value while sharply limiting operational exposure and preserving existing controls."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from established bullwhip, control-theoretic, and system-identification approaches is unsupported."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The transition operator is described as fitted without specifying the estimator, lag structure, treatment of exogenous inputs, regularization, or identification diagnostics.","repair":"Before empirical execution, preregister the operator-estimation procedure and require recovery and stability diagnostics under simulated and held-out data.","evidence_boundary":"This is an operational specification gap, not evidence that the proposed operator exists or is identifiable."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The intervention evidence begins with model-based replay, which may reproduce assumptions embedded in the fitted operator.","repair":"Add a later controlled operational validation stage, subject to separate authority, only after the shadow model passes residual, stability, and service guardrails.","evidence_boundary":"Replay can falsify internal predictions and screen risk but cannot alone demonstrate real-world causal damping."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing supply-chain control and bullwhip mitigation methods is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison focused on dynamic mode identification, modal policy sensitivity, and drift-governed deployment.","evidence_boundary":"No novelty conclusion is warranted from the closed-book packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, and no prior repair was supplied."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safely bounded transfer. Its main remaining uncertainties concern empirical operator identification, real-world causal confirmation, and prior-art distinctiveness rather than conceptual fit."}