{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__accounting_auditing","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"eb6de761327928cdb94495625663b1d2556f907722361864f933e1f22a3aa6bc","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted exact-termination assurance demand is defined independently of the proposed boundary mapping, restrictions, and router, and the candidate supplies a clear problem falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's decisive structure: an explicit decision class and model, parallel constructive and impossibility paths, enforceable decidable regions, honest weaker modes, and reclassification triggers."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Enforced admission, guarantee-labelled routing, and an explicit UNKNOWN state plausibly interrupt the identified pathway from timeout or incomplete search to false audit clearance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is complete and internally differentiated. Selected mechanisms retain their proper roles, including proof construction, proof review, restriction, bounded checking, routing, and complexity follow-on."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not claim that an audit undecidability proof already exists. It marks the reduction as an attempted, independently checked obligation, labels the proposal as hypothetical and unsearched, and expressly bounds encoded behavior away from financial-statement truth."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the universal computability issue exists, while the intervention falsifier separately compares routing outcomes against the baseline and checks missed actionable cases."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with engagement leadership and management, the pilot is offline, prohibited uses are explicit, affected parties are identified, and halt conditions restore existing human-reviewed procedures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates the archetype's boundary-classification logic, status distinctions, scope restrictions, fallbacks, and traceability requirements."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The accounting and auditing translation is credible and carefully qualified, but applicability depends on the audit claim genuinely ranging over arbitrary program behavior rather than a finite engagement population or external judgment."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Admission control and output-state separation directly address overclaiming, though practical benefit remains contingent on enforceable scope and organizational resistance to coercing UNKNOWN into clearance."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named archetype components receive domain-specific realizations, and the mapping preserves distinctions among proof, scope, uncertainty, governance, and feasibility."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest finite-domain objection, the semantic gap between encoded behavior and reality, ordinary-case exclusion, admission bypass, label loss, and theorem overgeneralization."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the governing question from whether an analyzer performs well to which assurance guarantees are computably available under declared representations and capabilities."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The offline bounded pilot, adversarial admission cases, baseline comparison, guarantee labels, and halt conditions are executable, although concrete property and fragment definitions remain future work."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot can prevent false assurance and wasted universal-automation effort, while acknowledged model omission, workflow displacement, and excessive UNKNOWN rates limit expected value."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet provides no evidence that the composition or its auditing application is novel."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and relevant prior art have not been investigated.","repair":"During deep research, compare the proposed composition with formal-methods audit tools, continuous-auditing assurance protocols, and scoped automated-control testing practices before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly labels prior art as unsearched; this critique does not imply that matching prior art exists."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no revision from which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates and meets the success thresholds through a strong, domain-aware translation with honest evidentiary boundaries. Deep research is warranted for novelty and real-world validation, not to repair a structural defect."}