{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__data_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"1cc1588d9b06f358eb63f4e39e5583c18bc6ea3454bda333b810b91be138e945","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The leakage-assurance problem is independently recognizable in data-science practice through unrestricted executable pipelines, deceptive negative verdicts, inflated validation, and affected downstream decisions."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's class specification, model-relative boundary, constructive and impossibility branches, decidable fragments, explicit unknown states, governed fallbacks, and reclassification triggers."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly removes unsupported universal negative assurance by conditioning rejection on a reviewed reduction, proving the restricted checker, enforcing scope membership, and labeling weaker modes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and selected mechanisms retain their intended roles without treating checking as discovery, bounded search as universal proof, or conservative analysis as exact classification."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unproved undecidability, restricted totality, and operational utility are consistently bounded as hypotheses or future obligations; the candidate does not present the contemplated reduction or pilot as completed evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged unrestricted class actually exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests checker soundness, enforceable membership, and guarantee-label interpretation."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is frozen-corpus and non-production, approval authority is bounded, affected parties are identified, prohibited overclaims are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions restore existing review."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The mapping closely instantiates computability-boundary analysis rather than merely borrowing its vocabulary."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Pipeline execution, lineage, timestamps, split rules, opaque calls, validation inflation, and model-risk governance make the proposal specific to data-science leakage assurance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal sequence is coherent and conditional, though its decisive impossibility and restricted-solvability obligations remain to be discharged."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and gives each element a concrete pipeline-analysis realization."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate identifies the strongest anti-signature, the analogy boundary, bypass incentives, false negatives, and marketing drift, but has not yet survived an executed proof review or pilot."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces repeated heuristic tuning of an overbroad Boolean analyzer with a governed portfolio of exact, conservative, bounded, and abstaining guarantees."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The frozen-corpus pilot, enforceable fragment, comparison procedure, falsifiers, and rollback are actionable, although formal artifacts and utility thresholds are not yet instantiated."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot can prevent deceptive assurance and wasted engineering effort while containing production risk, with remaining exposure from incomplete semantics, false alarms, and user bypass."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The load-bearing halting reduction and restricted-checker proof are specified as obligations but not exhibited.","repair":"During deep research, instantiate the formal leakage predicate, source-to-target encoding, preservation argument, fragment grammar, checker, termination proof, and correctness proof before changing any shipped guarantee.","evidence_boundary":"The current candidate supports a bounded research program, not an established impossibility result or production assurance claim."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No prior-art evidence supports the novelty classification.","repair":"Search adjacent work on static information-flow analysis, pipeline lineage validation, leakage detection, and decidable workflow languages before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can assess internal distinctiveness but cannot establish external novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The proposal is structurally faithful, domain-specific, safely bounded, and suitable for deep research, while its formal proofs, pilot results, and external novelty evidence remain explicitly unresolved."}