{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__linguistics_semiotics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"641f4e5e1595b9f4114575ebcdce44c87f3d29536881600600d981a6d6318420","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The grammar-equivalence requirement is a concrete domain problem with independent actors, consequences, and operational symptoms rather than an archetype restatement."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the universal guarantee, explicit class and model contracts, competing constructive and impossibility branches, restricted regions, honest fallback states, and reclassification triggers."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Fixing the formal class and requiring checked classification evidence directly prevents timeouts and finite examples from governing universal verdicts, while labeled fallbacks address unresolved cases."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain realizations, and selected mechanisms retain their proper roles, limits, and guarantee boundaries."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Target-specific solvability claims remain explicitly hypothetical; the proposal does not infer undecidability, decidability, or generality from absent proofs, timeouts, or bounded observations."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged unrestricted requirement already does not exist, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether boundary analysis and weaker modes fail to produce useful coverage."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is isolated and reversible, production authority is separately bounded, affected parties are named, and prohibited overclaims and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer closely matches the archetype's quantifiers, evidence branches, status distinctions, scope controls, fallbacks, and traceability requirements."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Grammar-language equivalence is a valid formal-linguistic application, but fidelity ultimately depends on the still-unfixed grammar formalism and whether generated strings capture the meaning relevant to users."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposed contracts, checked evidence, enforced fragments, labeled routing, and recheck triggers directly interrupt the stated failure pathway."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed component is translated into a recognizable grammar-workbench artifact, obligation, state, or governance control."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states strong counterevidence, the key reduction analogy break, boundary-specific failure conditions, distinct falsifiers, and credible misuse risks."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces repeated heuristic implementation effort with a model-relative solvability classification and governed degradation strategy."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The pilot is bounded, observable, and reversible, though formalization and proof obligations must be specified before decisive classification can occur."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary clarification could prevent costly false verdicts and doomed automation, while authority limits and rollback reduce but do not eliminate formalization and restriction risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, and no comparative evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The deployed grammar formalism and its semantic fidelity remain unspecified.","repair":"Before classification, freeze an enforceable syntax, alphabet, generated-language semantics, and computation model linked to the actual workbench requirement.","evidence_boundary":"No target-specific decidability or undecidability conclusion is established by the closed-book packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing formal-language analysis and grammar-tool governance is unsupported.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any novelty or differentiation claim.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly labels prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier; the change log reports neither identifier as changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, causally coherent, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safely bounded. It succeeds as a proposal for classifying and governing the grammar-equivalence boundary without pretending that the target-specific theorem has already been proved."}