{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__futurism_foresight","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"b08dfa8aa0c1fc2ca0f921af1b0e584ebc04ca539e33c43114b34f8aa82cd2cc","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The domain problem is independently recognizable: executable foresight models can produce overbroad assurance claims and ambiguous timeout behavior regardless of the imported archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the open-ended class, universal guarantee, model-relative boundary, enforceable restricted region, honest fallback, and reclassification-trigger structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Mechanically enforced fragments, guarantee-aware routing, and preserved output labels directly address the pathways by which bounded evidence or timeout becomes a universal strategic conclusion."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have distinct functions, and rejected mechanisms are bounded by explicit applicability conditions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical domain assertions are marked as hypotheses, derived claims are identified as inferences, and the candidate expressly leaves unrestricted-language decidability unresolved rather than inventing proof."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged boundary failure exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether routing and labels improve interpretation and resource use."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is confined to archived models, assigns guarantee authority to accountable governance, prohibits live policy automation, and defines concrete halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The declared problem, boundary diagnosis, restricted-class intervention, fallback states, and recheck logic closely preserve the archetype's essential structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Executable scenarios, plural futures, robustness claims, and governance consequences fit foresight practice, though the prevalence and operational form of the proposed problem remain unevidenced hypotheses."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Enforcement and labeling plausibly prevent guarantee inflation, but their effect on actual strategy decisions and institutional treatment of uncertainty still requires observation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and consistent with the causal chain and selected mechanisms."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the finite-class alternative, model-world mismatch, expressiveness loss, abstraction error, institutional misuse of uncertainty, and tractability concerns."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes analyzer failure from a generic validation or performance issue into a model-relative solvability and guarantee-governance problem."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The archived-model comparison, enforceable fragment, exhaustive reference check, labeled fallback, measurable failure conditions, and rollback rule form a feasible initial test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot can prevent false assurance and wasted development, while material risks remain around excluded futures, semantic mismatch, and institutional misuse of formal guarantees."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the composition may be useful but its novelty is not established."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The existence and frequency of Boolean overinterpretation in executable foresight systems are not yet evidenced.","repair":"Audit representative archived systems and decision records for scope claims, timeout handling, output-state collapse, and downstream interpretation before generalizing the problem.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports this only as a hypothesis and provides no observational sample."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Formal correctness could still certify a scenario model that omits affected parties or misstates the strategic property.","repair":"Add a semantic-fidelity review in which domain practitioners and affected-party representatives validate the encoded property and document consequential exclusions before accepting formal assurance.","evidence_boundary":"Proof checking can validate the formal statement but cannot establish empirical adequacy or normative legitimacy."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The composition's distinctiveness relative to existing executable-scenario assurance and formal-methods governance practices is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review focused on scenario-language restriction, assurance labeling, and unknown-aware routing, then state only the residual novelty supported by that comparison.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly records prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, so no improvement over an earlier candidate can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a coherent, safe, falsifiable transfer with unusually complete component and mechanism integration. Its main unresolved weakness is external evidence for prevalence and novelty, neither of which undermines the bounded pilot."}