{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__operations_research","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"05ea2ea778ba0812c37021c51d1dd86c86a66755212a4c09e804224e94d7f338","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The scheduling problem is stated in operations-research terms and remains coherent without reference to the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Intentionally unassigned capacity functions as bounded, protected absence tied to surrounding commitments, with explicit interpretation and release rules."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a credible leverage path from protected reserve through local deviation absorption to reduced disruption propagation, while exposing throughput opportunity cost."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing and supporting mechanisms have distinct roles, and irrelevant mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness is not asserted; inferential and hypothetical claims are labeled, novelty remains unclaimed, and the proposed comparison includes baseline and rival treatments."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether packed schedules generate propagation, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected reserve improves outcomes when that problem is present."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial test is replay-only, authority is bounded, affected parties and prohibited actions are identified, and hard-constraint and distributional rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected, purposeful, bounded absence is the intervention itself rather than a decorative metaphor, and its relationship to committed schedule blocks is explicit."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The formulation uses native scheduling objects, constraints, uncertainty, objectives, operational telemetry, dispatch authority, and comparator policies."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Local reserve can plausibly absorb stochastic deviations and reduce downstream coupling, but effectiveness depends on reserve placement, sizing, disruption structure, and release compliance."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into operationally distinguishable scheduling constructs with guardrails and test roles."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts chronic undercapacity, bad data, infeasible commitments, premature reserve consumption, opportunity cost, distributional harm, and a strong domain-native rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes selected idle capacity as an explicit recovery state with boundaries and triggers, though buffer capacity is already a familiar scheduling concept."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded historical replay specifies comparators, outcome measures, service checks, and rejection conditions without changing live dispatch."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The replay-first design limits immediate harm, measures foregone throughput against disruption savings, and preserves hard obligations and subgroup service constraints."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from established slack, buffer, robust, and stochastic scheduling methods is unsupported."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no evidence that the operator-visible protected-reserve state and release rule are distinct from existing scheduling-buffer practices.","repair":"During deep research, compare the complete intervention against established slack, buffer, robust, stochastic, and disruption-recovery scheduling formulations before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural coherence and testability only; it cannot establish prior-art distinctiveness or empirical effect."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, and no prior repairs were supplied."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate. It is an unusually complete domain translation in which protected absence remains causally load-bearing, competing explanations and interventions are testable, and the first evaluation is safely bounded. Deep research is warranted because empirical effectiveness and novelty remain unestablished."}