{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__library_information_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"81ad521b6022748934662ea618925cfed2812f87a483aa958b6ea37b5df8ba10","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The repository problem is independently specified through preservation objects, transformations, fidelity predicates, actors, observable behavior, and consequences rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted validator demand, implicit computational model, model-relative boundary analysis, enforceable fragments, honest status lattice, and governed fallbacks correspond closely to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formal specification, checked constructive and impossibility arguments, enforceable restriction, and guarantee-labeled routing directly target unsupported universal preservation claims. The proposed reduction is correctly treated as an obligation rather than an established result."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and selected mechanisms retain their distinct mathematical, operational, testing, or safety roles without being conflated."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and undecidability remain explicitly hypothetical or unresolved. Timeouts, samples, analogies, and failed proof search are not presented as evidence of impossibility, and no novelty claim is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the universal demand exists, while the intervention falsifier tests the formal boundary argument and whether routing reduces false certainty; these are distinct and observable challenges."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority includes preservation governance, collection stewardship, and independent review. The first step is bounded and non-production, originals are retained, unsafe actions are excluded, and halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's quantifiers, model contracts, constructive-versus-impossibility evidence, restricted regions, status distinctions, and fallback logic."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in digital preservation practice through significant properties, migration, emulation, metadata, executable works, collection stewardship, and preservation governance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention has a coherent route from formalization and proof obligations to enforceable routing and public guarantee control, although the decisive reduction and fragment proof remain pilot obligations."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed component is translated into a concrete preservation function with appropriate distinctions among proofs, records, policies, scope controls, and follow-on feasibility analysis."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates bounded-domain alternatives, semantic mismatch, unenforceable restrictions, reversed or invalid reductions, abstraction unsoundness, label laundering, and burden shifting."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces an undifferentiated fidelity validator with a model-relative boundary map and per-mode guarantees, exposing choices that ordinary test-coverage improvement would conceal."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded pilot, explicit artifacts, routing outcomes, unknown rates, proof obligations, review gates, and rollback conditions make the proposal testable, though formalization may be demanding."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot could prevent costly overclaiming and misdirected automation while containing operational risk, but semantic omission and curator workload remain material concerns."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty is unsupported and cannot be inferred closed-book."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifiers and no claimed revisions to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and domain-specific transfer with a coherent causal intervention, complete component coverage, strong falsifiers, and careful authority and safety boundaries. Its formal results remain appropriately prospective, and novelty remains unestablished."}