{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__marine_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"38a8bb6c55848837694b97429e3bee04e7eae4e9537931adbde0b79c8a347de9","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independent marine-model governance problem: universal hypoxia-reachability claims and false-unreachable interpretations, rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The open model class, universal decision claim, enforceable decidable region, explicit unknown state, and weaker fallback preserve the archetype's essential structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Mechanical fragment admission, evidence-gated exactness, and guarantee-labeled routing directly interrupt the conversion of incomplete search into false absence claims."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All required components receive domain realizations, and the selected mechanisms retain their defining limits, including bounded scope, one-sided soundness, reduction direction, and separation of decidability from tractability."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate makes the unrestricted impossibility conclusion conditional on a valid encoding and checked reduction, labels its scientific claims conservatively, and does not treat timeout or failed proof search as negative evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a computability problem exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the proposed workflow improves labeling and safety without unacceptable loss of utility."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial test is confined to synthetic and archived fixtures, operational authority is bounded, affected parties are identified, prohibited actions are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions address the principal harms."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal faithfully instantiates class specification, quantifier control, model-relative solvability, decidable fragments, honest unknown behavior, and complexity follow-on."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Hypoxia thresholds, coupled physical-biogeochemical models, forcings, horizons, numerical semantics, and model-to-ocean mismatch are credibly represented, though the workload remains hypothetical rather than empirically characterized."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Admission controls and output-label constraints plausibly prevent false-unreachable claims, but downstream compliance and the prevalence of the diagnosed failure mode remain untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally translated, with clear relationships between proofs, restrictions, routing, records, review, and uncertainty."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses the finite-workload objection, the model-versus-ocean analogy break, expressiveness limits, enforcement failure, state explosion, abstraction error, and downstream relabeling."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes unsuccessful marine simulation from empirical reassurance into a model-relative guarantee problem, while remaining applicable only where universal exact claims are actually being made."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The fixture comparison, observable output states, admission checks, logs, and halt conditions support a concrete test, although acceptance metrics and adjudication procedures need later specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded nonoperational trial offers meaningful assurance benefits with controlled immediate risk, while formal-model authority and excessive abstention remain material hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The composition is specific and coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty."}},"weighted_total":82.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing marine-model verification, reachability, and assurance workflows is unresolved.","repair":"During deep research, compare the complete workflow and its guarantee-labeled routing contract against documented prior systems and identify any genuinely distinguishing contribution.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation supports structural quality but cannot establish external novelty or prevalence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, safety-bounded transfer that preserves computability distinctions and ties them to a credible marine-modeling failure mode. Its principal unresolved issue is external novelty, with empirical prevalence and downstream adherence appropriate for subsequent research rather than gate failure."}