{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__astronomy_astrophysics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"17ca6deef455a430f5d03a6a8f1efc1c57b7f34eaf6f85d556d12bf7f834a300","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines the independent problem as an unrestricted exact and terminating eventual-outcome requirement whose inconclusive executions can be mislabeled, without making the problem depend on adoption of the proposed router."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's essential structure: an implicit open-ended class and guarantee are formalized, computability status is separated from tractability, enforceable decidable regions are mapped, and weaker modes retain honest scope labels."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes the guarantee-bearing interface and routing rules that permit timeout or exhaustion to become a false negative. Its effect remains conditional on confirming that the deployed service actually makes the stated universal claim."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain realizations, and selected mechanisms keep their proper roles. Bounded search is fenced by explicit bounds, fragment restriction requires enforceable membership and a proved procedure, and explicit UNKNOWN prevents a recognizer from masquerading as a decider."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not claim an astronomy-specific undecidability result. It marks the central computability claim as a hypothesis, rejects chaos and runtime as proof, requires a domain-matched certificate before any impossibility verdict, and preserves model-to-reality uncertainty."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged unrestricted Boolean requirement exists, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether formalization and routing reduce unsupported conclusions while preserving useful scientific semantics. These are distinct and observable."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized step is a reversible audit and replay pilot within platform ownership. Formal and domain review are required for computability claims, prohibited overclaims are explicit, affected parties are named, and halt and rollback conditions address label collapse and semantic mismatch."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates the archetype's quantifier, representation, computation-model, status-lattice, restricted-fragment, fallback, and recheck structure while explicitly screening the principal anti-signature."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Event reachability, finite precision, continuous-model mismatch, numerical failure, horizons, and certificate interpretation are translated credibly into astrophysical practice, although the existence and breadth of the motivating production requirement remain unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Guarantee-aware routing and explicit abstention should prevent inconclusive computation from becoming a negative scientific assertion, but impact depends on downstream systems preserving labels and on the exact fragment retaining useful coverage."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally specific, with domain realizations for formal scope, evidence, fallback behavior, review, uncertainty, traceability, and complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate presents the strongest rival diagnosis, identifies the bounded finite-workflow anti-signature, distinguishes chaos from undecidability, and supplies separate failure conditions and falsifiers that could defeat the transfer."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces an ambiguous simulation-success framing with a model-relative guarantee classification that separates solvability, numerical validity, resource feasibility, witness production, and physical interpretation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The initial audit, enforceable labels, timed-out-case replay, review requirements, triggers, and rollback rules make a credible pilot. Formal semantics and useful fragment coverage still have to be established during that pilot."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible audit can prevent false catalog conclusions and wasted universal-solver effort at limited initial cost. Residual risks include exclusion of important models, unusable bounded modes, label misuse, and institutionalization of an incorrect boundary."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The transfer is thoughtfully assembled, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet contains no comparative evidence that this guarantee-routing design is novel in computational astrophysics."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal has no evidence establishing novelty relative to existing simulation-service contracts, reachability tools, or abstaining scientific workflows.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison focused on guarantee labels, enforceable model fragments, certified event witnesses, and timeout handling, then state which integrated features are already established and which are distinct.","evidence_boundary":"Such research may support a novelty claim but must not be used to infer that unrestricted astrophysical reachability is undecidable."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repair registry, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and unusually well-bounded domain transfer. It earns success because it treats undecidability as unresolved, makes the first action an audit rather than an impossibility declaration, supplies enforceable fallback semantics, and survives the finite-bounded-workflow rival diagnosis. Deep research is warranted to verify the motivating workflow and establish prior-art position, not to rescue a failed structural mapping."}