{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__cognitive_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"856119ed530aff8e724f48202b9bba45da223eac456ced686e7843ac2b61bf7b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The target problem is independently recognizable in cognitive-model comparison: benchmark agreement can be overstated as universal behavioral equivalence, and the candidate supplies domain-specific observables and a problem falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the unrestricted class, total-decider demand, model-relative impossibility boundary, enforceable decidable regions, explicit unknown behavior, and complexity follow-on without collapsing computability into tractability."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Enforced fragment membership, proved restricted comparators, witness-based inequivalence, and guarantee-labeled routing directly interrupt the causal path from finite agreement or timeout to unsupported universal equivalence."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent cognitive-science realizations, and the selected mechanisms have stated roles, counterfactual-removal consequences, and appropriately bounded dispositions."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The decisive unrestricted-class result depends on whether the actual model language and observational semantics support a total computable halting-to-equivalence encoding. The candidate correctly labels this as hypothetical, but supplies neither the encoding nor a checked proof, so the boundary cannot be confirmed closed-book."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate separately falsifies the problem through consistently bounded stakeholder requirements and falsifies the intervention through unsupported-label, false-verdict, and fragment-enforcement outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to designated methodological review, the pilot uses synthetic models, consequential deployments are excluded, affected parties are named, and certificate, proof, scope, and downstream-label failures trigger halt and rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates the archetype's quantifiers, computation model, proof obligations, restricted regions, status lattice, fallback behavior, and reclassification triggers."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The target is credible for executable cognitive models and carefully distinguishes formal-model semantics from facts about minds, but applicability depends on the expressiveness and observational conventions of the actual modeling language."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The routing and labeling intervention plausibly prevents benchmark and timeout evidence from becoming universal claims, while the impossibility branch remains conditional on an unproved reduction."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and operationally connected to model syntax, traces, stimuli, randomness, certificates, review, and complexity assessment."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies the strongest no-fit case, the analogy boundary, bypass incentives, formalization error, state explosion, and semantic artifacts, with corresponding halt conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a Boolean comparison demand with a model-relative classification of exact, bounded, witnessed, out-of-scope, and unresolved outcomes, materially improving the decision frame."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The synthetic pilot, enforceable fragment, replayable certificates, baseline comparison, and explicit falsifiers are testable, though usefulness and coverage remain empirical questions."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot offers substantial protection against false equivalence claims at limited immediate exposure, but restrictive formalization and authoritative labels could distort scientific practice if adopted prematurely."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty evidence is available within the packet."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The unrestricted computability classification lacks the actual reduction and checked preservation argument on the declared cognitive-model semantics.","repair":"Obtain the language specification, formalize observational equivalence, exhibit the total computable source-to-target encoding, prove answer preservation, and subject the result to independent checking before authorizing an impossibility label.","evidence_boundary":"Until those artifacts exist, unrestricted undecidability is a hypothesis; failure to prove it leaves the class unresolved rather than decidable."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The exact fragment is described generically, so it is not yet established that membership, finiteness, and complete comparison are mechanically enforceable for the intended models.","repair":"Specify the fragment grammar and trace semantics, implement the membership checker, and demonstrate certificate-replay tests on both admitted and rejected synthetic models.","evidence_boundary":"Passing this operational test supports only the declared fragment and cannot generalize beyond its syntax, horizon, stimulus alphabet, or randomness assumptions."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Scientific usefulness is vulnerable to low coverage or excessive unresolved outcomes.","repair":"Predeclare coverage, unsupported-label, exact-verdict, and unresolved-rate criteria, then compare the router with the benchmark baseline on representative synthetic cases before expanding authority.","evidence_boundary":"Pilot performance can establish operational utility for the sampled regime but cannot establish novelty or the unrestricted computability theorem."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repair registry, and no prior revision against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-aware structural transfer with coherent mechanisms, explicit falsifiers, and disciplined safety boundaries. Success is withheld because the language expressiveness and checked halting-to-equivalence reduction needed for the central unrestricted boundary are absent and cannot be inferred closed-book."}