{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__cultural_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"0353c61b97b6009398571a500b180d3eac2385e8f9bd1b347c9d7c29038d54ce","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies an independent institutional problem: unconditional automated representation verdicts over arbitrary executable cultural works, with concrete consequences for access, interpretation, and affected communities."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Arbitrary works and traces, a behavioral predicate, a total terminating guarantee, restricted decidable regions, and governed fallbacks correspond directly to the archetype without collapsing cultural meaning into the operational proxy."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"A checked impossibility reduction would defeat the unrestricted guarantee, while enforceable fragments and explicit UNKNOWN routing directly prevent deceptive negative verdicts."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, selected mechanisms have differentiated roles, rejected mechanisms have coherent rationales, and the load-bearing reduction, restriction, and routing mechanisms form an integrated intervention."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate marks the mapping as inferential or hypothetical, conditions the impossibility conclusion on a valid reduction, states that prior art is unsearched, and does not treat timeout or failed proof search as substantive evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the unrestricted demand or input class exists, while the intervention falsifier tests the constructive boundary claim and the fallback protocol; these are distinct and observable."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is shared across technical and cultural governance, affected communities retain contestation and appeal, the first test is non-public and non-enforcement, and explicit halt and rollback conditions constrain harm."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's model-relative boundary analysis, quantifier discipline, proof obligations, decidable fragments, and honest weaker guarantees."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It addresses executable cultural artifacts, contested representation, marginalized communities, interpretive authority, and the danger of computational proxies without claiming that formal analysis resolves cultural meaning."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent, but its decisive force depends on establishing a faithful operational predicate, a sufficiently expressive work model, and a valid property-preserving reduction."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component receives a domain realization, including proof review, uncertainty residue, governance records, enforceable scope, and the complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates finite corpora, syntactic properties, ontological instability, reduction failure, unenforceable fragments, metadata loss, and institutional misuse."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a misleading binary cultural classifier with a governed classification of exact, sound, bounded, unknown, and interpretive outputs."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow test, synthetic works, finite consented corpus, scope labels, counterexamples, and rollback triggers are actionable, though the formal reduction and fragment analyzer remain to be constructed and checked."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal could prevent false clearances and overconfident suppression with limited initial exposure, while formalization bias, asymmetric false alarms, and concentrated human authority remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The decisive impossibility result is currently a reduction plan rather than a supplied checked certificate.","repair":"During deep research, construct the executable-work embedding, state the operational predicate formally, and independently verify totality, computability, scope, and answer preservation before relying on the boundary verdict.","evidence_boundary":"Until that certificate exists, the unrestricted classification remains conditional rather than established."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No novelty or prior-art evidence is present.","repair":"Search adjacent work in formal verification of interactive media, procedural-content analysis, cultural-computing classification, and algorithmic moderation before making an originality claim.","evidence_boundary":"The current packet supports structural merit but no novelty conclusion."}],"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":"This is a strong, domain-faithful transfer that treats computability as a limit on automated operational predicates while preserving cultural interpretation, contestability, and authority outside the proof. Its main unresolved work is evidentiary validation of the reduction and novelty, not structural repair."}