{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__human_computer_interaction","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"7ae78700469822d785cd4446b208e3c8f70ea147a5564ab262f598656f449b8d","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable HCI failure: an expressive automation interface converts inconclusive analysis into misleading binary feedback, with observable interface states, affected users, and deployment consequences."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted workflow class, universal terminating verdict, model-relative boundary, restricted fragments, explicit unknown behavior, and reclassification triggers correspond directly to the archetype without collapsing computability into usability or runtime performance."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formalizing the accepted class and guarantee, proving exact fragments, enforcing restrictions, routing weaker analyses, and exposing inconclusive states plausibly interrupts the pathway from unsupported analyzer claims to unsafe user reliance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain realizations, and selected mechanisms retain their defining obligations, including reduction direction, proof review, enforceable fragment membership, one-sided recognition, and guarantee-labelled routing."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and input-language properties are explicitly marked as hypotheses, prior art remains unsearched, and the candidate does not treat analogy, timeout, or failed proof search as evidence of undecidability."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier audits whether the diagnosed interface condition exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether labelled routing improves user discrimination and deployment choices under correctly classified conditions."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is read-only, sandboxed, and non-deploying; production authority is bounded; affected parties and required reviewers are named; prohibited interpretations and concrete halt-and-rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's class-wide quantifiers, model contracts, proof obligations, honest weaker guarantees, and governed boundary changes."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer is grounded in authoring interfaces, status signifiers, automation bias, accessibility, user comprehension, workflow expressiveness, and deployment decisions specific to HCI practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"Each intervention element targets a stated mediator: unsupported universality, unenforced scope, guarantee laundering, deceptive binary presentation, or silent semantic drift."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally translated, with mechanisms assigned distinct proof, routing, review, fallback, testing, and governance roles."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates decidable-language counterevidence, invalid halting analogies, formalization error, unsound abstraction, excessive abstention, routing mistakes, accessibility failure, and stale records."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a runtime-and-copy optimization frame with a model-relative solvability and interface-honesty frame that changes both product requirements and evaluation criteria."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded shadow comparison, observable outcomes, baseline, exclusions, and halt conditions support an executable first test, though decision thresholds and classification-validation procedures need later protocol detail."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The reversible non-executing prototype has meaningful learning value while production claims, hazardous labels, syntax changes, and external actions remain outside its authority."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports unsearched prior art and supplies no comparative novelty evidence."}},"weighted_total":92.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The relationship to existing end-user programming, explainable verification, abstaining classifiers, and formal-methods interface research is unknown.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, conduct a scoped prior-art review and state which composition, interface contract, or evaluation design is absent from the closest precedents.","evidence_boundary":"The current record appropriately labels prior art as unsearched and supports structural evaluation only."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The first test lacks predeclared decision thresholds and a detailed procedure for independently validating each routed classification.","repair":"In the research protocol, define comprehension and unsafe-choice endpoints, comparison criteria, classification ground truth, reviewer disagreement handling, and exclusion rules.","evidence_boundary":"This is protocol completion work rather than a defect in the proposed causal lever."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, independently grounded HCI transfer that preserves the computability-boundary structure, gives mechanisms non-ornamental roles, separates problem and intervention falsification, and safely bounds initial authority. Its main evidence gap concerns novelty, which does not defeat the otherwise successful evaluation."}