{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__earth_sciences","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3994f1fe06a40b43b90f068d2b956e29cd0be7c3dd9ad101de800476d6e77351","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The executable-model hazard-reachability problem is independently stated in Earth-science terms and does not depend on analogy to establish its operational importance."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the unrestricted class, universal guarantee, model contract, status boundary, restricted regions, honest fallback, and reclassification structure."},"G3":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The proposed lever is credible, but its decisive branch depends on whether the actual admitted model language supports a property-preserving encoding from an undecidable source."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, mechanism roles are differentiated, rejected mechanisms have reasons, and load-bearing mechanisms include counterfactual-removal statements."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"Claims are honestly bounded as hypotheses, but neither a checked impossibility reduction nor a proved-total analyzer for a semantically faithful production fragment is supplied."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the admitted class is already finite and bounded, while the intervention falsifier separately tests the proposed proofs, fragment, and interface behavior."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with hazard decision-makers, the initial test is synthetic and sandboxed, unsafe interpretations are excluded, and halt conditions preserve the existing advisory workflow."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely reproduces the archetype's model-relative boundary analysis, guarantee lattice, restricted-class strategy, and explicit unknown behavior."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Actors, executable Earth-system semantics, hazard predicates, and scientific-fidelity risks are credible, though the actual production language and representative process constructs remain unspecified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":2,"reason":"Preventing timeout-as-clearance through typed outcomes and enforced routing is plausible, but the boundary-setting effect remains conditional on formal results not yet obtained."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component receives a domain realization, including proof review, uncertainty residue, recheck triggers, and the complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts finite-language counterevidence, physical-versus-computational category error, semantic mismatch, state explosion, user bypass, and stale assumptions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes repeated solver failure from a scaling problem into a model-relative question about which guarantees are possible and safe to publish."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The sandboxed dual-proof exercise, fragment enforcement, routed outputs, and halt rules are testable, but execution requires a frozen language specification and formal artifacts."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded first step could prevent unsafe hazard clearance and wasted universal-automation effort with limited direct operational risk, while formalization mismatch remains consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty conclusion."}},"weighted_total":80,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["causal_plausibility","novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The actual admitted model language has not been frozen or shown to support the proposed reduction, leaving the unrestricted classification unresolved.","repair":"Specify the production syntax and semantics, then obtain independent verification of either a property-preserving source-to-target reduction or evidence that the required encoding is unavailable.","evidence_boundary":"Until that artifact exists, the candidate supports a research hypothesis and interface guardrails, not an impossibility verdict."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"No constructive totality and correctness proof is supplied for a restricted fragment that remains faithful to the intended hazard task.","repair":"Define mechanically enforceable fragment membership, exhibit its analyzer and proof, and have Earth-science reviewers test whether excluded constructs remove scientifically essential behavior.","evidence_boundary":"Bounded or finite-state solvability cannot be generalized to production models or interpreted as hazard clearance without this validation."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The selected fallback labels are conceptually sound but have not been tested for downstream interpretation.","repair":"Run synthetic comprehension and integration tests demonstrating that analysts and consuming systems preserve UNKNOWN, timeout, numerical failure, out-of-scope, witnessed reachability, and qualified safety as distinct states.","evidence_boundary":"A formally correct backend does not establish operational safety if interfaces or users collapse qualified outcomes."}],"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":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, safety-conscious structural transfer and a credible research design. Advancement is blocked by missing formal evidence about the actual model language and the semantic fidelity of the proposed decidable fragment."}