{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__gender_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"9add4ec72bc7dec7d2e908095e3fa801dbafa7776b9ebaf55a212085447ec6f1","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independent institutional audit problem: unrestricted executable policy models are given definitive equity clearances despite timeout, abstraction, and scope uncertainty."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's class specification, universal guarantee, enforceable decidable restriction, explicit unknown behavior, semantic-fidelity requirement, and complexity follow-on."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Syntactic scope enforcement, guarantee-preserving routing, and explicit UNKNOWN outputs directly prevent unsupported or inconclusive analyses from becoming definitive compliance findings."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain realizations, and selected mechanisms retain distinct roles across restriction, analysis, routing, evidence review, and governance."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels empirical and causal claims as hypotheses, leaves unrestricted undecidability unresolved without a valid reduction, and does not treat tests, timeouts, or analogies as proofs."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a class-wide computational claim exists and whether the predicate is stable enough to formalize, while the intervention falsifier separately compares labeling and routing effects against a mixed-method rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is synthetic and non-deployed, authority includes affected-party representation, prohibited uses are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions address technical, semantic, and communicative failures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates computability-boundary mapping without collapsing undecidability, tractability, approximation, timeout, and semantic validity."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate treats gendered harm as contextual and intersectional, reserves substantive justice for governance, and recognizes that formal identity categories can misrepresent affected people; the formal audit setting is nevertheless narrower than much gender-studies inquiry."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Enforced scope and typed outputs plausibly reduce false definitive clearances by construction, while broader gains in stakeholder interpretation and useful coverage remain appropriately hypothetical."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, internally consistent, and supported by mechanisms whose contributions and counterfactual necessity are stated."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts the strongest anti-signatures, semantic analogy break, bypass risk, excessive UNKNOWN behavior, formalization harm, and guarantee laundering."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully separates what automated equity analysis can guarantee from whether the encoded disparity concept is substantively just, yielding a more honest audit architecture."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The synthetic bounded pilot supplies reference truth, seeded violations, rival comparison, interpretable outcomes, and stop conditions, though constructing a stakeholder-faithful predicate and usable fragment remains demanding."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A non-deployed reversible pilot offers meaningful assurance benefits with bounded exposure, while legitimation, category erasure, institutional escalation bias, and coverage distortion remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book evidence establishes novelty."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to formal-methods work on policy verification and computational approaches to fairness is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and distinguish the proposed equity-governance integration from existing policy-model checking, fairness verification, and assurance-case practices.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred from internal coherence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifiers and no registered repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"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 weakness is novelty evidence, which does not undermine the proposed synthetic pilot or the integrity of its bounded claims."}