{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__ethnography_qualitative_methods","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"09685ee446ccd2438165cd46653f40c88d3d94e8c9770478672f0a978691decd","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independent domain problem: an overclaimed validator for user-authored qualitative workflows, with concrete methodological and governance consequences beyond the archetype's generic formulation."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The open-ended workflow class, universal guarantee, formal contracts, evidence obligations, restricted regions, and honest fallback preserve the archetype's load-bearing structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Mechanically enforced scope, proof obligations, independent review, and guarantee-labeled routing directly interrupt the path from finite benchmark performance to unsupported universal validation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, while selected mechanisms retain their native roles and rejected mechanisms are excluded for stated structural reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical observations are labeled as hypotheses, formal transfers remain conditional on checked encodings and proofs, and the candidate explicitly leaves unrestricted status unresolved when evidence is absent."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, including an already-enforced total workflow class for the former and failure to create a useful enforceable fragment or reduce false verdicts for the latter."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded, the first step is read-only and sandboxed, sensitive materials require existing authorization, substantive interpretation remains outside validator authority, and halt conditions restore human review."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal faithfully translates the full computability-boundary pattern, including quantifiers, model relativity, constructive and impossibility evidence, restricted classes, explicit uncertainty, and reclassification triggers."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal engages qualitative coding practice, contextual interpretation, participant interests, methodological governance, and the distinction between formal consistency and ethnographic validity, though the programmable workflow setting remains hypothetical."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed controls plausibly prevent unsupported Boolean verdicts and guarantee drift, but their usefulness depends on obtaining a meaningful enforceable fragment and faithful workflow semantics."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a coherent domain realization, and the translations preserve distinctions among formal solvability, operational feasibility, and interpretive adequacy."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate supplies strong counterevidence, an explicit analogy break, bypass and abstraction failures, separate falsifiers, and risks involving formalization, institutional authority, and human escalation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces benchmark-centered validation with a model-relative boundary decision that separates exact validation, bounded evidence, sound fallback, uncertainty, and substantive interpretation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible sandbox pilot, enforceable fragment, counterexample search, routing comparison, and halt criteria are specified, but the concrete grammar, focal property, resource budget, and evaluation measures remain to be instantiated."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The first step is low-risk and could prevent both harmful overclaiming and premature abandonment, while usefulness loss, false alarms, formalization errors, and authority laundering remain material controlled risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so the packet provides no evidence supporting a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifiers and no claimed revision to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a structurally faithful, domain-aware, falsifiable, and safely bounded adaptation. Its main unresolved limitation is the explicit absence of prior-art evidence, which does not undermine the internal quality judgment."}