{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__art_aesthetics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2adb02049e0fb8c3d6d134d90c5474820223f9f95e0a76e0fb52e4f1a904210c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The domain problem is independently coherent: institutions can overstate finite testing or timeout behavior as universal certification of formal properties of generative works. The proposal does not depend on treating beauty itself as computable."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the open-ended program class, universal terminating guarantee, behavioral predicate, restricted decidable regions, weaker fallbacks, explicit unknown state, and versioned guarantee provenance."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formalizing scope, proving or rejecting total solvability, enforcing restricted fragments, and labeling fallback guarantees directly prevent sampled or incomplete analysis from becoming a universal certificate."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and the selected mechanisms retain their proper roles. Proof methods establish boundaries, fallback methods weaken guarantees honestly, and records and reviews govern rather than manufacture mathematical conclusions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate presents the transfer as a hypothesis, marks prior art as unsearched, conditions impossibility on a valid reduction, and requires unresolved status when assumptions fail. It does not claim that a reduction or deployed result has already been established."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the accepted class is already finite and decidable, while the intervention falsifier tests the reduction, existence of a full analyzer, and the labeling effect. These are distinct and observable challenges."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is consent-based and sandboxed, preserves artist choice and curator judgment, excludes subjective merit claims and silent rejection, and specifies withdrawal and relabeling when scope, soundness, or interpretation fails."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates the archetype's quantifiers, model dependence, status distinctions, decidable fragments, and governed fallback structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It uses genuine generative-art substrates and explicitly separates formal visual predicates from beauty, artistic merit, completed-image inspection, and audience response."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed proof, restriction, routing, and labeling chain targets the certification failure directly, though the unrestricted impossibility result and the effect of labels remain to be demonstrated under the actual deployment model."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific to artwork languages and renderers, and preserves the distinction between analytical, evidentiary, operational, and review functions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies the strongest scope breaks, supplies separate falsifiers, rejects invalid generalization from finite images, and anticipates institutional misuse of formal labels."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces an undifferentiated aesthetic pass/fail analyzer with a model-relative boundary among exact, bounded, sound-incomplete, unknown, and out-of-scope results."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The sandboxed comparison is feasible and produces inspectable labels, but the finite input fence and the measure of reduced universal misinterpretation need operational specification before execution."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention can prevent false certification and wasted engineering effort, while acknowledged risks from restrictive languages, false alarms, and institutional overreach require monitoring."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The transfer is potentially distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no comparative novelty evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The candidate supplies no evidence that this particular certification architecture is novel within generative-art tooling, creative-coding verification, or computational-aesthetics practice.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and compare the proposal's boundary routing, guarantee labels, and governed unknown behavior against the closest systems.","evidence_boundary":"This is a novelty limitation only; it does not undermine the internal structural correspondence or the explicitly conditional computability claims."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot does not yet define how false universal interpretations will be measured relative to the baseline.","repair":"Predefine comprehension or downstream-consumption checks that distinguish bounded, unknown, and universal readings of each result label.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed labels are causally plausible, but their communication effect is currently a testable hypothesis rather than an established outcome."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair record; the problem and causal-lever identifiers are unchanged and no improvement over an earlier candidate can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-faithful transfer that preserves computability boundaries without conflating formal output properties with aesthetic value. Its main remaining limitation is absent novelty evidence, with a smaller operational need to define how the pilot tests label comprehension."}