{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__criminology_forensic","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"563dcda9891a4c73c39a1d4380c72df28649eb4a369e6dafdd73bfda498231fb","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently recognizable as evidentiary overclaiming by forensic software analysis, with the transfer explicitly limited to class-wide semantic questions about arbitrary executables rather than forensic inference generally."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the unrestricted class, universal terminating verdict, one-sided evidence, collapsed non-answer, enforceable restriction, and governed fallback structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Scope enforcement, witnessed outputs, explicit UNKNOWN states, and guarantee-aware routing directly interrupt the proposed path from incomplete analysis to unsupported categorical conclusions, although field effectiveness remains hypothetical."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain realizations, and the selected mechanisms retain their defining guarantees and limits. The reduction is correctly treated as an evidence obligation rather than an already-established forensic theorem."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are labeled as hypotheses, inferential mappings are identified, and no missing proof or unperformed audit is presented as completed evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged categorical-overclaim condition exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether routing and boundary controls improve outputs without harmful misrouting."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is confined to synthetic non-case data, authority limits are explicit, consequential evidentiary changes are excluded, affected parties are named, and halt and rollback conditions are concrete."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates the archetype's quantifiers, computability distinctions, enforceable boundaries, non-answer taxonomy, and fallback discipline."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal is specific to digital-forensic program analysis and respects forensic reporting and review concerns, but the prevalence of the targeted workflow behavior is not established."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The controls plausibly prevent timeout and unsupported inputs from becoming categorical conclusions, but the claimed improvement has not yet been demonstrated against actual reporting behavior."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, internally consistent, and supported by mechanism dispositions with meaningful removal counterfactuals."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies the strongest counterevidence, sharply limits the analogy, states mapping failure conditions, separates falsifiers, and anticipates semantic and implementation failures."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes a subset of tool-validation questions as guarantee and scope questions, while correctly conceding that most finite or statistical forensic questions require other frames."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The synthetic pilot, label checks, independent review, scope tests, and rollback are feasible, though comparative outcome measures and sampling criteria need further operational definition."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible synthetic pilot has credible auditability benefits and bounded immediate risk, while misuse of impossibility labels or UNKNOWN states remains consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The existence and frequency of the targeted categorical-overclaim pattern in forensic practice remain unestablished.","repair":"Audit a defined corpus of analyzer specifications, interfaces, validation records, and reports, coding universal claims and the handling of timeout, unsupported, unresolved, and out-of-scope outcomes.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a falsifiable hypothesis and audit design, not observational evidence that the problem occurs in deployed practice."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot lacks a prespecified comparator and coding rule for unsupported categorical outputs and consequential misrouting.","repair":"Define the report-level unit of analysis, label-confusion categories, blinded review procedure, baseline comparator, and decision criterion before running the synthetic pilot.","evidence_boundary":"Operational feasibility is supported by the design, but effectiveness cannot be inferred without those measurements."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No prior-art evidence distinguishes the proposal from existing digital-forensic validation, uncertainty-reporting, or software-analysis assurance practices.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and document which existing controls already implement scope contracts, abstention states, checked impossibility claims, and guarantee-aware routing.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty is unresolved because the candidate declares its prior-art status unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the 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 strong, carefully bounded transfer for arbitrary-program semantic analysis in digital forensics. It preserves the archetype's core distinctions, supplies a coherent causal intervention, survives the stated analogy break, and contains appropriate forensic authority safeguards. Its principal remaining limitations are empirical prevalence, operational measurement detail, and absent novelty research."}