{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__environmental_climate","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"962ad2217296d521877abe65a1668d30f1481b76de07b233dd572aa59b615b0c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The target is an independently stated environmental model-governance problem with identifiable actors, observable failure states, consequences, and falsifiers."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted class, total decision demand, model-relative impossibility boundary, decidable region, honest fallback, and reclassification trigger correspond directly to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"A checked reduction can retire the unsupported universal guarantee, while enforceable fragment membership and labeled routing directly control which guarantees reach reviewers."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and the load-bearing mechanisms have distinct roles spanning impossibility, constructive recovery, routing, and explicit uncertainty."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unverified reduction, prevalence, soundness, and pilot claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses; prior art is marked unsearched and no fabricated authority or completed proof is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The diagnosis and intervention have distinct falsifiers, including absence of a universal requirement, an already enforced decidable class, failed proof review, false labels, and excessive abstention."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is sandboxed and nonbinding, decision authority is bounded, affected parties and risks are named, and halt and rollback conditions prevent pilot outputs from controlling live clearance."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's class-wide quantifiers, model contracts, proof obligations, status distinctions, restricted regions, and governed fallbacks."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer is anchored in executable environmental models and regulatory review while explicitly refusing to generalize the formal result to climate physics or empirical uncertainty."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The causal chain connects formal classification to enforceable admission, verified exact checking, honest fallback labels, and reclassification triggers without relying on analogy alone."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete domain realization, including proof review, reduction preservation, unknown behavior, complexity follow-on, and traceable decision records."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies the strongest neighboring explanation, the central analogy break, operational failure modes, and direct tests capable of defeating both diagnosis and intervention."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the review question from whether more simulation effort will eventually settle every submission to which model classes and guarantees are honestly supportable."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The sandboxed historical and adversarial pilot is concrete, but semantic agreement, reduction construction, checker proof, and eligible-case definitions remain substantial implementation obligations."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing could prevent false clearance and wasted investment, while formal-model omissions, access burdens, alarm overload, and rhetorical overextension remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The halting-to-threshold construction is described only as a proof sketch.","repair":"During the authorized pilot, formalize the source and target encodings, translation, preservation argument, and exact scope, then obtain independent review before publishing an impossibility conclusion.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly labels the reduction as hypothetical; this evaluation establishes structural plausibility, not a completed certificate."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The abstention threshold and historical eligibility rule are not justified.","repair":"Predeclare case eligibility, stratify results by model class, and justify the usability criterion with regulator and submitter input before interpreting pilot performance.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed pilot supplies a falsifiable threshold but no closed-book evidence that it reflects operational needs."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty evidence is available.","repair":"Search computability-aware model governance, formal verification of executable environmental models, and regulated fallback routing before making originality claims.","evidence_boundary":"The record explicitly states that prior art is unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original record with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repairs; neither identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete and domain-faithful transfer with an honest evidence boundary, strong falsifiability, and a safely bounded pilot. Formal proof completion, usability calibration, and novelty research remain follow-on work rather than gate failures."}