{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__behavioral_economics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"56a00c1bb0c69f618f311d9656b9512b6e8ff6b34af2cfe8a3ba56c5002ee756","gates":{"G1":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The proposal defines a coherent formal-model problem, but provides no closed-book evidence that behavioral-policy practice actually demands the stated universal exact predictor rather than bounded probabilistic estimation."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted class, total decider, computational embedding, decidable fragments, honest fallback, and reclassification triggers correspond closely to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The causal argument is valid conditionally, but the required computable embedding and answer-preservation proof for the declared behavioral language have not been exhibited or checked."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, mechanism roles are differentiated, rejected mechanisms have relevant rationales, and the router preserves bounded and unknown semantics."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The central impossibility premise remains an explicitly labeled hypothesis, prior art is unsearched, and no checked reduction or constructive fragment proof is supplied."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers covering bounded actual requirements, failure of computational expressiveness, invalid reduction preservation, unenforceable fragment membership, and unusable fallback coverage."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to model-analysis modes, intervention authority remains accountable, the first test is synthetic, prohibited uses are explicit, and rollback conditions address proof and labeling failures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal faithfully instantiates the archetype's class-wide quantifiers, model-relative boundary, proof obligations, restricted regions, fallback guarantees, and explicit unknown states."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":2,"reason":"Behavioral terminology and human-model safeguards are credible, but the motivating requirement may be an artificial formalization rather than a demonstrated behavioral-economics problem."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":2,"reason":"The conditional reduction chain is logically coherent, but its load-bearing embedding and preservation obligations remain unproved."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a specific domain realization, including assumptions, proof review, uncertainty residue, recheck triggers, and the complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate directly acknowledges bounded probabilistic requirements, empirical misspecification, language expressiveness failure, model-human mismatch, suppressed abstention, and fallback infeasibility."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"For a genuinely universal exact requirement, the proposal usefully replaces heuristic iteration with a solvability classification and governed degradation, though that gain depends on confirming the requirement exists."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A synthetic sandbox, formal language, checked reduction, restricted dialect, disclosed corpus, explicit outputs, and rollback criteria create a feasible test program, but concrete artifacts are not yet supplied."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing could prevent wasted automation effort and deceptive policy claims, while sandboxing and authority limits contain direct harm; formalism displacement remains a material risk."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported within the closed-book record."}},"weighted_total":71.25,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":["No fabricated external evidence or authority was detected; the central transfer premise is explicitly labeled as a hypothesis.","The proposal must not be treated as establishing undecidability because it supplies neither the behavioral-language embedding nor an independently checked preservation proof."],"weak_dimensions":["domain_fidelity","causal_plausibility","novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposed behavioral problem is not yet shown to be an independent real requirement rather than an archetype-shaped hypothetical.","repair":"Document an actual specification or representative requirement demanding an exact terminating class-wide verdict, and distinguish it from finite-horizon probabilistic prediction.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can assess the stated structure but cannot establish incidence or importance in behavioral-policy practice."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The impossibility claim depends on an unconstructed behavioral-language reduction.","repair":"Specify the language semantics and encoding, construct the computable source-to-target mapping, prove target attainment preserves halting, and obtain independent checking.","evidence_boundary":"Conditional plausibility does not establish the unrestricted class's status."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The restricted fallback is described without demonstrated membership enforcement, coverage, or feasibility.","repair":"Implement the fragment checker and bounded analyzer, then test termination, guarantee labeling, abstention propagation, coverage, and cost on a disclosed corpus.","evidence_boundary":"A proposed grammar and router do not by themselves show operational usefulness."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and relation to existing formal behavioral-model verification work are unknown.","repair":"Conduct scoped prior-art research only after the problem and formal language are fixed, and bound any novelty statement to the resulting comparison.","evidence_boundary":"The supplied record explicitly contains no novelty search."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair; remaining weaknesses are evidentiary rather than attributable to revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, mechanism-complete, falsifiable, and safely bounded, but its domain independence and decisive causal premise remain unverified. Research and formal proof are required before the unrestricted predictor can be classified or the transfer advanced."}