{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__systems_cybernetics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"693beeda32e4d34696c934113c1eca1dbd452e65e2100b0ef8cea8e65da4015c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The inventory-order oscillation problem is independently recognizable through coupled stocks, backlogs, forecasts, pipelines, delays, and recurrent local correction failures; it does not depend on accepting the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The review-cycle transition, joint state, approximate modes, modal responses, intervention map, residual checks, drift monitoring, and interpretation limits correspond closely to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal connects replenishment controls to risky joint directions through stability and outcome-sensitivity testing, while treating causal effectiveness as a comparative hypothesis rather than an established result."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every named component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms have distinct functions and removal consequences, unsuitable mechanisms are explicitly rejected, and non-normality and coupling are preserved rather than hidden."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, no unsupported factual authority is asserted, and the proposal separates analytical output from causal validation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a reproducible endogenous coupled mode exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether modal targeting outperforms local tuning and the nonlinear rival without harmful cross-effects."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to accountable operations owners with model-risk and echelon review; the first step is offline, consequential live actions are excluded, affected parties are named, and halt conditions preserve the existing policy."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate instantiates the full transformation-to-mode-to-control structure with explicit residual, drift, gap, coupling, and local-validity governance."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Stocks, backlogs, forecasts, pipeline orders, replenishment rules, delays, service risk, capacity, and echelon authority form a coherent systems-and-cybernetics substrate."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed lever could damp endogenous closed-loop oscillation, but observational operator estimation, nonlinear constraints, delays, overrides, and exogenous shocks leave material identification uncertainty."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All components are translated into operational supply-network objects, tests, thresholds, controls, or governance conditions without obvious decorative mappings."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts exogenous shocks, nonlinear saturation, discrete constraints, policy drift, non-normal transients, near-degeneracy, omitted low-energy behavior, and a credible nonlinear rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes diagnosis and intervention from isolated threshold breaches to coupled dynamic directions, enabling coordinated controls and earlier monitoring of hidden amplification."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The offline shadow comparison, temporal holdout, residual checks, rival comparison, and halt rules are executable, though thresholds, data sufficiency, and identification procedures remain to be instantiated."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"An offline first step limits immediate harm and could improve service and stability, but benefits remain uncertain and coordinated policy changes could propagate workload or inventory harms if later deployed."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the proposed application or intervention is novel."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The candidate establishes structural merit but not novelty relative to supply-chain control, system-dynamics, and modal-analysis practice.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making novelty or differentiation claims.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched; this limits novelty conclusions but does not invalidate the bounded shadow-test proposal."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The operational test names preregistered budgets and thresholds without supplying their definitions or calibration procedure.","repair":"Before execution, specify data-sufficiency criteria, conditioning limits, residual and service-loss budgets, gap and drift thresholds, transient-growth bounds, and comparative decision rules.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports test architecture, not the empirical calibration or feasibility of those thresholds."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered prior repairs against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates as a strong, domain-grounded modal reframe with a plausible but explicitly provisional causal lever, distinct falsifiers, extensive adversarial boundaries, and conservative authority controls. Deep research should focus on empirical identification, threshold calibration, comparative performance, and prior art."}