{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__aviation_aeronautics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"70a67dcbb5f3471fba0b5e9bbf980c593d1f5d6576eff3ee7982bb5bd4b4e638","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The aviation problem is independently specified as an assurance requirement whose binary interface can misclassify bounded, timed-out, or unresolved analyses; the problem remains intelligible without the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transfer preserves the essential correspondence among an unrestricted total-exact demand, model-relative classification, enforceable decidable regions, weaker governed fallbacks, explicit unknown states, and assumption-triggered reclassification."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever acts directly on the failure pathway: formal scope contracts and checked solvability evidence determine routing, while guarantee labels prevent bounded or one-sided results from becoming universal clearance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All core boundary-mapping components receive aviation-specific realizations, and the selected mechanisms retain their defining constraints, including conservative abstraction, enforceable restrictions, valid reduction direction, totality evidence, and honest unknown handling."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels the domain problem and risk as hypotheses, presents undecidability as an obligation to be proved rather than a settled fact, and explicitly preserves unresolved status when the reduction or model assumptions fail."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes a bounded finite assurance task from a class-wide computability problem, while the intervention falsifier separately tests the reduction, existence of a total procedure, semantic fidelity, and preservation of output labels."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with the applicable certification or design-approval body; the first step is offline and non-certifying, safety-critical actions are excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions cover model, abstraction, scope, and interface failures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's quantifiers, computation-model dependence, evidence obligations, status lattice, restricted regions, fallback guarantees, and recheck logic without collapsing computability into complexity."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Controller languages, finite hardware semantics, environment traces, hazardous reachability, conservative abstractions, certification authority, state explosion, and downstream clearance behavior form a coherent aviation assurance setting."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"Scope enforcement, constructive or impossibility evidence, classified routing, and durable guarantee labels plausibly interrupt the specific pathway by which incomplete evidence becomes an unsafe universal verdict."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into operational aviation artifacts or obligations, with adaptations that preserve each component's original role."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest boundary objection—that deployed systems may be finite and merely intractable—and makes that outcome a reclassification condition rather than defending undecidability by analogy."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a binary question about whether verification works with a model-relative portfolio of exact, sound-incomplete, bounded, unresolved, and escalated assurance modes."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The offline pilot, enforceable fragment, synthetic controllers, approved sample, output comparison, halt criteria, and versioned records are actionable, though detailed pilot acceptance metrics remain to be set."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention can prevent both impossible engineering commitments and deceptive clearance while preserving useful restricted assurance; residual risks are substantial but explicitly bounded by non-certifying execution and authority controls."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the closed-book packet supplies no comparative evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing aviation assurance and formal-verification practice is unevidenced.","repair":"During authorized follow-on research, compare the combined boundary-routing and guarantee-record approach against established assurance cases, bounded model checking, abstract interpretation, runtime assurance, and certification guidance.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation cannot establish novelty or prior-art distance."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and safety-conscious aviation transfer. It avoids asserting undecidability from analogy, makes finite deployed systems a genuine countercase, and provides a credible route from model-relative classification to governed assurance outputs. The remaining evidence gap concerns novelty rather than fit, causal logic, operational safety, or falsifiability."}