{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__geoengineering_planetary_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"57cf6607e1bd4851d2a0d81fb7a2dff02bf905e2bf3a08ab5785e0d1bc8d5d01","gates":{"G1":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The proposed assurance failure is independently recognizable and operationally specified, but the packet supplies no domain evidence that an actual geoengineering program makes the unrestricted exact-verdict demand or collapses result states."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The open input class, universal terminating verdict, model-relative boundary, enforceable decidable region, weaker fallback, and reclassification triggers correspond closely to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Enforced language restriction, a proved verifier, guarantee-preserving routing, and distinct result labels directly interrupt the path from bounded or incomplete evidence to universal certification."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and the load-bearing mechanisms have differentiated mathematical, routing, and safety roles with credible removal tests."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The candidate appropriately avoids asserting an undecidability theorem, but problem prevalence, practical fragment coverage, abstraction usefulness, and prior-art distinctiveness remain unsupported hypotheses."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the overbroad assurance demand exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests soundness, scope labeling, and comparative usefulness."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to offline analysis and advisory language; deployment is excluded, affected parties are named, unsafe label conversions are prohibited, and concrete halt conditions withdraw the guarantee."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's quantifiers, status distinctions, proof obligations, enforceable boundary, and governed fallback without claiming an unsupported impossibility result."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":2,"reason":"Controllers, executable planetary models, horizons, disturbances, and model-reality mismatch are domain-relevant, but the motivating institutional practice and useful coverage are hypothetical."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"If the stated assurance failure exists, enforceable fragments and invariant result labels plausibly prevent overclaiming; effectiveness still depends on semantic fidelity and downstream compliance."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and operationally connected to selected mechanisms rather than merely renaming abstract elements."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate directly acknowledges finite-model decidability, model error, alert fatigue, impractical complexity, weak coverage, and the absence of evidence for the motivating demand."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully separates in-principle solvability, bounded evidence, sound incompleteness, and planetary-model validity, improving on a Boolean simulation recommendation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The offline bounded pilot has enforceable scope, exhaustive comparisons, independent review, explicit labels, and observable halt criteria, though usefulness requires empirical coverage measurement."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":2,"reason":"The pilot is reversible and may prevent false certification, but formal labels can gain political authority and a semantically faithful, operationally useful fragment has not been demonstrated."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing formal verification and climate-model assurance practice is unevidenced."}},"weighted_total":73.75,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":["No fabricated target-specific undecidability proof was detected; the unrestricted status is correctly left unresolved.","Problem prevalence, useful fragment coverage, comparative benefit, and novelty are presented as hypotheses or missing evidence rather than established findings."],"weak_dimensions":["domain_fidelity","expected_value_risk","novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The packet does not establish that a real geoengineering assurance workflow demands an unrestricted exact terminating verdict or collapses UNKNOWN, TIMEOUT, and SAFE.","repair":"Collect auditable requirements, interface specifications, decision records, or workflow observations from an identified assurance setting; otherwise narrow the problem to a setting where the failure is documented.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate's own counterevidence states that existing practice may already be bounded, probabilistic, and label-preserving."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposed certified fragment has no demonstrated coverage of decision-relevant controllers or advantage over conservative simulation practice.","repair":"Predeclare a representative archived corpus and comparative metrics for admitted coverage, unsafe-trace detection, abstention, runtime, false alarms, and reviewer bypass, then run the offline pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The packet specifies a toy pilot and falsifiers but provides no pilot observations or coverage evidence."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing formal verification, robust-control assurance, and planetary-model governance practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and identify which combination of computability classification, enforceable fragments, result-label preservation, and recheck governance is absent from established practice.","evidence_boundary":"The classification explicitly marks prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The transfer is structurally strong, mechanism-complete, falsifiable, and conservatively governed. It cannot yet advance because the motivating domain practice, useful certified coverage, comparative value, and novelty require external evidence."}