{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__innovation_entrepreneurship","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ad309abc05cbafa65391bdb2b342244d347f464519a9e7dc08b2afc03b27b4ae","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The venture-screening problem is independently coherent: an unrestricted executable-model interface promises terminating Boolean milestone decisions and converts unresolved computation into consequential rejection signals."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype’s essential correspondence among an unrestricted analyzer, explicit representation and computation contracts, an enforceable decidable region, and weaker guarantee-labelled fallbacks."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Class specification, checked impossibility analysis, enforceable restrictions, and fallback routing directly remove the unsupported universal guarantee and prevent timeout from being treated as a negative result."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms have defined causal or governance roles, rejected mechanisms have stated reasons, and the load-bearing mechanisms form a coherent chain."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal labels the transfer as hypothetical, confines impossibility claims to encoded simulator classes, requires a checked reduction and independent review, and does not present timeout or failed search as impossibility evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes computability from bounded forecasting or ordinary complexity, while the intervention falsifier tests termination, correctness, scope enforcement, and preservation of UNKNOWN semantics."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step is an offline shadow test; production changes require governance and proof approval; affected parties, prohibited uses, halt conditions, rollback, and human review are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The declared class-wide guarantee, computational model boundary, restricted solvable regions, and honest fallback states closely instantiate the archetype."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The actors, funding consequences, venture-model workflow, and product-governance setting are credible, although unrestricted executable venture simulations are a specialized screening product rather than a broadly established entrepreneurship practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention changes both admissible inputs and output semantics, so it can prevent unsupported guarantees and deceptive negative forecasts rather than merely documenting them."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally specific, with proof, scope, routing, uncertainty, review, traceability, and complexity follow-on functions represented."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates finite-language counterevidence, simulator-to-reality analogy failure, unenforceable restrictions, semantic mismatch, user misinterpretation, distributional effects, and impractical exhaustive search."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a monolithic venture-outcome prediction promise with a model-relative portfolio of exact, bounded, witnessed, unknown, and out-of-scope guarantees."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The frozen-corpus shadow pilot and explicit failure observations are executable, but full validation still depends on formalizing the simulator language and completing independent proof review."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing can avert wasted development and harmful rejection signals, with strong safeguards; remaining risks include exclusion of decision-relevant models and unequal burdens from UNKNOWN outputs."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The transfer is articulated distinctly, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet supplies no comparative novelty evidence."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The claimed distinctiveness of applying computability-boundary governance to venture-simulation screening is unsupported by prior-art evidence.","repair":"Before making a novelty claim, compare the proposal with existing simulation-verification, algorithmic decision-governance, and venture-screening systems while preserving the current bounded scientific claims.","evidence_boundary":"This evaluation establishes internal structural quality only; it does not establish historical or market novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs or revision baseline from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, causally coherent, falsifiable, and safety-bounded transfer. Its main unresolved issue is external novelty evidence, which does not undermine the intervention’s internal validity."}