{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__computer_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f8d98c5dee494e9a1cab21da4b21bb7dfa21d53c4824581ee090238aad6e9865","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The workflow admission problem is concrete and independently specified through actors, observable behavior, consequences, and an operational objective rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted class, universal Boolean guarantee, model-relative boundary, enforceable subclasses, explicit unknown state, governed fallback, and recheck triggers correspond closely to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The source-to-target reduction directly challenges the impossible universal requirement, while enforceable fragments, sound incomplete analysis, and guarantee-aware routing provide plausible replacement leverage."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit contributions and removal counterfactuals, and rejected mechanisms are distinguished without being used as decorative support."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formal and empirical claims are appropriately separated, assumptions and unresolved semantic fidelity are exposed, and the candidate does not treat timeout, testing, or proof-search failure as impossibility evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier could show that the computability diagnosis is misplaced, while the intervention falsifier independently tests exact guarantees, abstraction soundness, and routing labels."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to a sandboxed pilot, production changes require multidisciplinary sign-off, prohibited actions are explicit, and concrete halt and rollback conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's full boundary-mapping logic, including model contracts, quantifier discipline, impossibility evidence, decidable regions, weaker fallbacks, and traceability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The workflow interpreter, encoded program-input pairs, external calls, terminating language fragments, finite fuel, abstractions, and downstream admission semantics are technically coherent domain realizations."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"A checked halting reduction can retire the unrestricted exact requirement, and mechanically enforced restricted lanes can then support honest total or weaker guarantees."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named archetype component receives a specific workflow-platform realization, with adaptations confined to components whose operational form genuinely changes."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest rival diagnosis, model mismatch, unenforceable scope, unsound abstraction, poor coverage, and downstream misuse through distinct counterevidence and failure tests."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a misleading universal Boolean analyzer with a model-relative boundary and a governed family of exact, incomplete, bounded, and escalated modes."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The authorized pilot fixes a non-production substrate, formal subset, evidence checks, routed outputs, finite exhaustive test space, and observable rollback triggers."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention can prevent futile implementation and deceptive admission decisions, but workload coverage, abstraction quality, operational usefulness, and override pressure remain material uncertainties."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the composition or application is novel."}},"weighted_total":93.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior revision, and neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a coherent, falsifiable, safely bounded computability intervention. Its only clear evidentiary weakness is the deliberately unsearched novelty claim."}