{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__public_administration_policy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"63499e94d6fed4170c871b967fbc501e6560f473e2abd01893b28eb44d864b29","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The public-administration problem is independently specified through linked queues, workflow coupling, observable consequences, and an explicit possibility that the modal hypothesis fails."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's transformation, state, invariant-direction, gain, residual, drift, and validity-window relationships rather than using modal language decoratively."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The causal lever targets feasible administrative controls mapped into risky workload modes, with a prospective test distinguishing modal damping from queue-to-queue burden transfer."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have necessary roles in the causal chain, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for structurally relevant reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The existence and stability of administrative modes are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, descriptive findings are separated from causal authority, and no empirical success or prior-art finding is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled propagation exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the proposed adjustment improves outcomes without transferring backlog."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with accountable administrators under governance review, the first step is bounded and reversible, prohibited uses are explicit, and consequential halt conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates the full invariant-mode workflow, including coupled state evolution, modal gains, stability classification, intervention mapping, residual checks, drift monitoring, and scope limits."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Actors, administrative data, statutory obligations, labor constraints, service equity, discretion, and public-sector authority are integrated into the design rather than appended as generic context."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from workflow coupling through estimated modes to coordinated control is coherent and prospectively testable, but selective control of a stable risky mode remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and consistent with the selected and rejected mechanism dispositions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal confronts common shocks, seasonality, measurement changes, endogeneity, rapid mode rotation, structured residuals, ill-conditioning, burden transfer, and causal overinterpretation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It materially shifts diagnosis from isolated queues and visible bottlenecks to coupled workload combinations whose amplification and consequences can be monitored and controlled."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The design identifies available aggregate data, temporal validation, a reversible pilot, outcome criteria, and rollback logic, though operational thresholds and identification details still require preregistration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential service-wide delay reduction is meaningful, while aggregation, reversibility, equity checks, authority boundaries, and rollback conditions substantially constrain foreseeable harm."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supports no evidence-based novelty conclusion."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no prior-art evidence supporting novelty relative to queueing, system-dynamics, workflow-control, or public-service operations research.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and identify the closest implemented approaches, then state whether the contribution is a novel intervention, a novel synthesis, or a domain adaptation.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet establishes internal distinctiveness from the named baseline and rival but cannot establish external novelty."}],"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 passes every reject-first gate and presents a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safely bounded modal intervention design. Its central empirical premise remains explicitly testable, while external novelty is unresolved rather than guessed."}