{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__education_pedagogy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ab8d404d85e46f7642331828b842ac442a54bcf50db325b6e820f866cd054cfb","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The assessment problem is stated independently of the proposed intervention, with observable interface and log conditions, educational consequences, and a specification audit that can falsify its presence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The universal grading claim, implicit computation model, collapsed timeout state, restricted decidable region, honest fallback, and reclassification triggers correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The chain links formal scope classification, checked constructive or impossibility evidence, enforceable restrictions, labeled routing, and recheck triggers to the prevention of unsupported fail verdicts. The baseline and nearest rival isolate the proposed lever."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have specific causal roles and counterfactual-removal accounts, and rejected mechanisms are distinguished without assigning them hidden work."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects and uncertain operating conditions are labeled as hypotheses, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and impossibility claims are conditioned on checked reductions and matching assumptions rather than asserted by analogy."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier audits whether the alleged overclaim exists, while the intervention falsifier tests correctness and downstream effects of the proposed routing. These can fail independently."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized action is a non-grading shadow pilot under existing institutional authority, with protected code handling, independent review, explicit exclusions, subgroup monitoring, halt criteria, rollback, and preservation of appeals."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's quantifiers, model-relative solvability classification, constructive and impossibility evidence paths, decidable boundaries, explicit unknown states, and guarantee rechecking."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation is grounded in programming assessment, gradebook behavior, instructional authority, appeals, accommodations, learning-objective validity, and the distinction between program semantics and student competence."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Enforced scope and labeled routing plausibly prevent unsupported Boolean failures, but the frequency of affected submissions, unresolved workload, and educational outcome effects remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally specific, while the mechanism composition assigns distinct proof, restriction, routing, review, fallback, and feasibility functions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses finite-domain counterevidence, semantic ambiguity, assessment-validity mismatch, formalization error, workload transfer, subgroup disparity, boundary gaming, and guarantee overreach."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes apparent test coverage and timeout engineering as a model-relative guarantee problem, then separates exact grading, bounded evidence, unknown outcomes, and human review."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow pilot, comparison outputs, disagreement review, and halt conditions are executable, although formalizing a meaningful rubric and proving an exact fragment may require substantial specialist effort."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The shadow-only scope and rollback protections limit immediate harm, while the approach could prevent invalid grades and wasted automation effort. The proposal explicitly monitors unresolved volume, equity, and human-review burden."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty of the composition or its educational application."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The candidate does not establish that a concrete target course actually makes the unrestricted guarantee or collapses exceptional states into failure.","repair":"Before selecting a deployment target, audit its specification, accepted language, interface, logs, and appeals handling against the stated problem falsifier.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a structurally coherent problem and test protocol but no observational evidence about prevalence or any identified institution."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The composition's novelty relative to existing autograding and program-analysis practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review focused on formally restricted autograders, explicit unknown verdicts, and human-review routing before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate declares its prior-art status unsearched and makes no novelty assertion."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle; the problem and causal-lever identifiers are unchanged and no improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a faithful and unusually complete transfer of computability-boundary mapping into programming assessment. Its proof, restriction, routing, test, and safety structure is sufficient for success; the principal evidence gap concerns novelty and concrete prevalence rather than structural validity."}