{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__logistics_supply_chain","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"c60d61c176dddd726cafd7d43423a915f2c56d9f15a4c00b7ebd5ef403865841","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate states an independently recognizable logistics-platform problem involving policy-analysis guarantees, operational labels, external actors, and fulfillment consequences; it does not rely on the analogy alone to establish harm."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted decision demand, implicit computation model, proof obligations, enforceable subclasses, status lattice, and governed fallbacks correspond closely to the archetype without collapsing computability into complexity."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formalizing the policy class, enforcing a decidable fragment, and preserving UNKNOWN directly interrupt the paths from ambiguous scope and timeout coercion to false assurance, while conditional proof work determines whether impossibility or scaling is the relevant boundary."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, and the selected mechanisms retain their proper roles: constructive proof establishes exact solvability, reduction establishes impossibility only when preservation holds, abstraction supplies a weaker guarantee, and routing preserves labels."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels the disputed domain and undecidability premises as hypotheses, makes impossibility conditional on a faithful checked reduction, distinguishes failed search from proof, and does not present unsearched prior art as novelty evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier would relocate the case to complexity, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether fragment enforcement and routing improve labeling and guarantee fidelity against the baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is non-production and review-gated; live shipment actions, Boolean timeout coercion, unchecked scope claims, and undeclared oracles are excluded, with explicit halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's quantifiers, model dependence, constructive-versus-impossibility evidence paths, status distinctions, restricted regions, and honest fallback logic."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Rule languages, event streams, queues, fulfillment states, carriers, operators, and shipment authority make the translation operationally specific, though the actual deployed language and environment remain unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Scope enforcement and output-label preservation plausibly reduce false assurance and misdirected automation effort, but operational benefit depends on the corpus, model fidelity, and downstream handling observed in the pilot."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and gives concrete logistics realizations rather than merely renaming abstract components."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates the strongest anti-signature, representation failure, abstraction unsoundness, reduction error, downstream label loss, expressiveness loss, and practical state explosion."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the decision from adding capacity to a presumed universal analyzer into classifying the guarantee boundary before choosing exact, approximate, bounded, or escalated operation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded non-production corpus, admission checks, baseline comparison, independent review, halt conditions, and observable label failures support a feasible pilot, although concrete metrics and corpus-selection criteria need elaboration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The advisory pilot limits immediate operational exposure and could prevent both false clearance and futile investment, while model omission, alert fatigue, and excessive restriction remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The deployed policy language, bounds, and current analyzer guarantees are not yet established.","repair":"Use the authorized pilot to inventory the grammar, operational semantics, external capabilities, enforced bounds, and existing correctness or termination evidence before selecting an impossibility or complexity path.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly treats these facts as hypotheses; evaluation does not infer them from the archetype."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot comparison lacks explicit measurements for mislabeled outcomes, routing-label retention, admitted-policy coverage, and abstraction usefulness.","repair":"Predefine observable error categories, downstream label-preservation checks, coverage measures, review criteria, and decision thresholds in the pilot protocol.","evidence_boundary":"This is an operational-strengthening opportunity and does not invalidate the stated causal mechanism."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior candidate revision or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, safety-bounded transfer that keeps the computability conclusion conditional and proposes a testable path for separating impossibility from complexity. Its principal unresolved weakness is lack of novelty evidence and empirical characterization of the deployed policy system."}