{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__literature_literary_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"76082ef0b8e9d099f642bfbd330881d858f67ab82f6f2ae70452f02a5b8ff3b6","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The independently recognizable problem is authoritative universal interpretive adjudication without bounded semantics, scope, or abstention behavior; it is not defined merely as absence of the proposed intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's essential structure: an unrestricted class, explicit representations and computation model, totality obligations, parallel constructive and impossibility evidence, restricted regions, and honest fallback states."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Enforceable fragments, evidence-conditioned classification, guarantee-labelled routing, and distinct unknown states plausibly interrupt the path from computational limitation to false interpretive authority."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-translated, while selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, testing, and safety roles with coherent removal counterfactuals."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Undecidability and one-sided recognizability are treated as hypotheses rather than facts, theorem transfer is conditioned on formalization and preservation, and the absence of prior-art research is disclosed."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the overclaim exists, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether the boundary controls work or whether a total procedure defeats their premise."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to a bounded pilot, consequential literary and educational decisions remain outside automation, affected parties and formalization risks are named, and concrete halt and rollback conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal instantiates the full computability-boundary pattern without claiming that literary interpretation itself is already proven decidable or undecidable."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"It respects contested warrantedness, historical context, scholarly disagreement, and representational loss, though the pilot predicate remains to be demonstrated with authentic literary practices."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Scope enforcement and abstention should reduce false authoritative verdicts, but their effect relative to calibrated advisory tools remains an empirical question."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a specific literary-validation realization, including proof obligations, scope controls, uncertainty residue, review, and complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses ontology failure, bounded-task alternatives, absence of universal claims, constructive defeat, theorem mismatch, institutional bias, and scope leakage."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes a diffuse dispute about machine interpretation as a set of separable formal guarantees and governance boundaries, while preserving the prior role of scholarly judgment."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot, explicit output states, comparison baseline, independent review, and halt criteria are executable, although the encoded case universe and outcome measures need preregistration detail."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible first step could prevent consequential overclaiming, with residual risk that the formal fragment becomes an unofficial norm for legitimate criticism."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal establishes no novelty relative to digital-humanities validation, argumentation systems, or formal hermeneutics work.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any originality claim, while preserving the current unsearched label until that review is complete.","evidence_boundary":"This affects novelty evidence only and does not undermine the packet-internal structural or causal evaluation."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates by treating unrestricted literary validation as an unresolved formal question, translating the boundary architecture comprehensively, and coupling a bounded pilot with explicit abstention, authority limits, falsifiers, and rollback. Its principal evidentiary weakness is the disclosed absence of novelty research."}