{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__law_governance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f19f41ed34afb8fd0366f88dc13c23f5a3dcce705d44ac8d8e0343909eff303f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The legal-governance problem is independently stated as an unbounded compliance mandate with observable specification defects, affected parties, consequences, and a domain-specific falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's class, representation, model, quantifier, solvability, evidence, restricted-region, fallback, and recheck structure without collapsing computability into complexity or semantic ambiguity."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formalizing the class and model, testing constructive and impossibility arguments, enforcing decidable fragments, and preserving UNKNOWN directly constrain unsupported universal automation claims."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive identifiable legal realizations, and selected mechanisms have coherent roles, counterfactual-removal statements, guarantee boundaries, and complementary rather than substitutive functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels target and mapping claims as hypotheses or inferences, marks prior art as unsearched, conditions any undecidability conclusion on a valid scoped reduction, and does not treat failed search or timeout as evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier independently tests whether the mandate is already bounded and totally decidable, while the intervention falsifier tests whether boundary mapping changes any guarantee, scope, fallback, or complexity transition."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Substantive legal authority remains with empowered institutions; the initial step is nonbinding and sandboxed; rights-affecting automation, adverse treatment of UNKNOWN, and silent scope expansion are excluded; halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer closely instantiates the full computability-boundary pattern, including model-relative classification, parallel constructive and impossibility tests, restricted regions, honest fallback, and reclassification triggers."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal accounts for legal interpretation, institutional authority, changing law, disputed facts, reviewability, regulated parties, and rights-affecting consequences rather than treating law as ordinary software input."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed sequence can prevent unsupported totality claims and unsafe output coercion, although its decisive result remains conditional on faithful formalization and valid proof obligations."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component has a concrete and functionally faithful legal-governance realization, with adapted elements clearly distinguished from direct transfers."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts finite real-world programs, semantic-fidelity failure, proof mismatch, overgeneralized impossibility, unenforceable restriction, downstream label loss, and unaccountable human escalation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It converts a binary procurement promise into an auditable portfolio of model-relative guarantees, enforceable scope boundaries, explicit uncertainty, and governed escalation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded synthetic pilot, independent review, enforceable fragment membership, guarantee labels, falsifiers, triggers, and rollback rules are testable, though full formalization may require substantial interdisciplinary work."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing could avert costly or harmful deployment, and the sandbox and authority controls limit exposure; residual risk remains from formalization error, exclusion effects, and escalation failure."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is supported within the closed-book record."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The record establishes no novelty relative to existing legal expert systems, computational-law governance, formal-methods procurement, or administrative review practices.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison before making any novelty or differentiation claim.","evidence_boundary":"This affects novelty only; it does not negate the internally supported structural and causal evaluation."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifiers, no claimed identifier changes, and no supplied repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, causally plausible, falsifiable, and safety-bounded transfer. It succeeds by governing an unresolved boundary rather than asserting an unsupported legal computability verdict; only novelty remains unevidenced."}