{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__information_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"9e24367f39e41f7a883b43fb8a4fbfbca4bb8cada56059bcc9bdf2d3e98467fb","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a concrete information-theory failure involving exact individual-description claims, fixed decoders, and misleading compression labels rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted class, model contract, impossibility boundary, recognizable witness side, bounded regions, explicit unknown state, and governed fallback correspond coherently to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"A checked impossibility certificate blocks unsupported universal automation, while witness search, bounded procedures, and labeled routing directly prevent timeouts or best-so-far results from becoming exact negative verdicts."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is substantially complete, omissions are justified by the direct-proof path, and selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, review, and test roles with credible removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Claims are bounded to a fixed effective model, inference and hypothesis status are disclosed, formalization mismatch is retained as uncertainty, and novelty is not asserted despite the absence of prior-art research."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes finite or ordinary compression requirements from universal shortest-description claims, while the intervention falsifier separately tests labeling effects, utility, and proof validation."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is a reversible synthetic-corpus pilot, authority over mathematical claims is constrained, affected parties are named, prohibited uses are explicit, and halt conditions disable unsafe exact-negative labels."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's class-wide quantifiers, model relativity, proof obligations, restricted regions, honest fallback, and status distinctions."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The fixed universal decoder, shortest-program question, recognizable shorter-witness side, and distinction from Shannon entropy and practical compression are appropriate to algorithmic information theory."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The proof-and-routing chain targets both the invalid universal guarantee and the operational pathway by which incomplete searches become false incompressibility claims."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every archetype component receives a specific domain realization, and the unused reduction contract is coherently excluded because a direct impossibility proof is selected."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates bounded-task counterexamples, model drift, wrong formalization, vacuous bounds, downstream relabeling, excessive unknowns, and unenforceable restrictions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the task from optimizing an assumed exact compressor into classifying model-relative guarantees and routing requests among exact, witnessed, heuristic, and unknown outcomes."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The synthetic pilot, output-state audit, proof review, scope checks, and rollback are executable, though decision-value thresholds and coverage criteria remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible pilot can cheaply prevent authoritative false negatives, while residual risks from model misunderstanding, low fallback utility, and downstream label drift remain material but controlled."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports prior art as unsearched and supplies no comparative evidence that the composition or application is novel."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The routed pilot lacks predefined utility and coverage thresholds for deciding whether bounded and unknown outputs are operationally worthwhile.","repair":"Before broader deployment, define task-specific acceptance criteria for useful witness coverage, bounded-mode completion, unknown handling, and downstream label preservation.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values require empirical pilot data and cannot be established from the closed-book packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No evidence supports a novelty claim for the mechanism composition or its application.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art comparison against algorithmic-information tools and interfaces before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly marks prior art as unsearched, so novelty remains unresolved rather than inferred."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, and no prior repairs were supplied."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally coherent translation with strong falsifiers and conservative authority controls. Its main unresolved issue is evidentiary novelty, while empirical utility criteria would strengthen later deployment decisions."}