{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__history_historiography","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"b50ce0773ffa638bd17095f38bb16829add1b8e9f857a7e49dfdb2ca57fbda42","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is stated independently as an overbroad guarantee for temporal-consistency checking of executable historical models; it remains intelligible without assuming the proposed fragment restriction or fallback router."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's essential structure: an open-ended encoded class, a total exact demand, model-relative computability classification, enforceable decidable regions, one-sided evidence, explicit unknown behavior, and governed fallbacks."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Mechanically restricting admission to a finite-state rule fragment directly supplies the termination boundary, while exhaustive checking supplies exact within-fragment decisions and labeled bounded search prevents timeout from becoming a false Boolean verdict."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component is translated, and the load-bearing mechanisms have distinct roles spanning admission, constructive checking, fallback routing, guarantee recording, and independent proof review. Rejected mechanisms are accompanied by coherent removal counterfactuals."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not claim that unrestricted undecidability or fragment correctness has already been proved. Prospective reductions and proofs are explicitly gated by review, claims are model-relative, and novelty and prior art remain openly unsearched."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged universal demand exists, while the intervention falsifier tests whether a reviewed unrestricted decider makes restriction unnecessary. These target distinct propositions and could independently change the decision."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to scholarly governance, data stewards, and an independent methods reviewer; the first step is confined to synthetic non-public models; excluded uses, halt conditions, and rollback behavior directly address false historical authority and representational harm."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer faithfully instantiates the computability-boundary pattern without treating historiographical interpretation itself as an algorithmic decision problem."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in executable historical models, archival provenance, contested interpretation, scholarly governance, and the crucial distinction between formal consistency and historical truth."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is technically coherent, but its decisive assumptions still require a concrete fragment grammar, a termination argument, and validation that the admission check cannot be bypassed."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into domain-specific contracts, records, policies, proof obligations, scope controls, and review functions with no material omission."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates the strongest anti-signature, states where the analogy breaks, identifies bypass and usability failures, and supplies independent falsifiers for both diagnosis and intervention."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces an unreliable Boolean adjudication problem with an auditable classification of model scope, guarantee strength, evidence type, and fallback status."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The synthetic pilot, admitted and excluded cases, proof review, routing behavior, and rollback conditions are testable, though the fragment and acceptance metrics are not yet operationally specified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A synthetic staged pilot and non-deceptive outputs limit downside, while expressiveness loss, state explosion, biased encoding, and downstream coercion remain meaningful residual risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence supporting novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The enforceable fragment is described by properties but not yet by a concrete grammar, membership algorithm, or proof obligations.","repair":"During deep research, specify the fragment formally and demonstrate that every admitted model has a finite reachable state space under the declared semantics and scheduler.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports the design logic but contains no completed fragment definition or reviewed proof."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty or prior-art evidence is supplied.","repair":"Search digital-history validation systems, temporal rule engines, provenance-aware historical databases, and formal-model checking workflows before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly marks prior art as unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred closed-book."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; neither identifier is recorded as changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a faithful, domain-aware, falsifiable, and safety-bounded transfer. Its principal remaining work is empirical and formal validation of the proposed fragment, plus prior-art research; these limitations do not undermine the structural success of the candidate."}