{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__architecture_urban_planning","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"a0269d0a01bee44413c63e442d0f1a5df855a806fd5d641b1caff16a4f525953","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The planning-compliance problem is independently recognizable through universal Boolean promises, implicit rule-language scope, timeouts, and legally consequential misclassification."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's open input class, total-decider claim, model-relative boundary, enforceable decidable region, and honestly labeled fallback."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Enforceable language restrictions, proved exact procedures, explicit unknown states, and guarantee-aware routing directly prevent unsupported universal verdicts."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, and the selected mechanisms retain their proper roles as proofs, restrictions, bounded procedures, reviews, records, and operational routing."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels the central expressiveness and impossibility claims as hypotheses, treats failed search as inconclusive, and requires checked constructive or reduction evidence before classification."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the accepted class is already uniformly decidable, while the intervention falsifier separately tests routing soundness, label containment, and comparative utility."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Legal authority remains with officials; the first step is shadow mode, consequential automated decisions are excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect affected parties."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer closely instantiates the archetype's quantifiers, computation model, evidence obligations, boundary classification, and fallback invariants."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Plan representations, evolving compliance rules, geometric semantics, permit review, accessibility, life safety, and official authority are integrated as domain constraints rather than decoration."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed controls plausibly stop guarantee laundering and impossible unrestricted automation, although utility depends on useful enforceable fragments and manageable review volume."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a specific domain realization, with proof, scope, uncertainty, governance, and complexity functions kept distinct."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts the strongest finite-domain objection, identifies when the halting analogy breaks, and supplies separate problem and intervention failure conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces the rival strategy of adding compute and timeout with a model-relative solvability classification and governed degradation of guarantees."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow pilot, fixed corpus, boundary injections, comparison baseline, output labels, and stop conditions are executable, though formalization and coverage criteria need local specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing can avert deceptive verdicts and wasted investment, while retained official authority and rollback controls limit harms from model mismatch, exclusion, and reviewer overload."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no closed-book evidence for novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty is unsupported because relevant planning-technology and formal-verification prior art has not been examined.","repair":"Conduct bounded prior-art research and distinguish the proposed boundary-and-routing package from existing code-checking, permitting, and formal-rule systems.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation can assess structural quality but cannot establish novelty beyond the supplied packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, so no revision improvement can be attributed; the remaining weakness concerns external novelty evidence."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, falsifiable transfer with honest epistemic boundaries, intact mechanisms, and strong authority safeguards. Its central impossibility premise remains explicitly conditional, and novelty requires external research, but neither defect invalidates the proposed boundary-testing intervention."}