{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__material_culture_museum_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f10c69eac60b998f587ceecbcfc81c62a3146577d4afb6b4a31f1752841d2b32","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The museum problem has independent stakes in collection care, access, evidentiary integrity, and irreversible preservation decisions; it is not merely the archetype restated."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The open-ended executable class, total terminating verifier, model-relative boundary, enforceable restricted regions, and explicitly weaker fallbacks correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Checked boundary classification, enforceable admission, guarantee-labeled routing, and explicit UNKNOWN behavior directly interrupt the conversion of incomplete evidence into authoritative preservation verdicts."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, mechanism roles are differentiated, rejected mechanisms have coherent reasons, and the load-bearing mechanisms form an integrated proof-to-routing-to-governance workflow."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not present the museum-specific impossibility claim as established; it conditions that claim on faithful formalization, a valid reduction, and independent review while labeling the transfer as hypothetical."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether an open-ended total requirement exists, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether routing and proof review prevent false verdicts; these are distinct and observable."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided appropriately, the initial pilot is non-dispositive and offline, irreversible actions are excluded, affected parties are named, and explicit halt and rollback conditions preserve existing custody."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer preserves the archetype's decisive quantifiers, computation-model dependence, proof obligations, restricted decidable regions, and honest fallback states."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is tightly limited to executable digital artefacts and formal behavioral properties, while explicitly excluding unformalized cultural meaning from the computability claim."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"Each intervention stage addresses a named failure pathway, from overbroad totality through invalid scope transfer to downstream Boolean collapse and guarantee drift."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete museum-workflow realization, and the supplied mechanisms are selected, adapted, or rejected without conflating their functions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the finite-collection objection, semantic-fidelity break, reduction failure, unenforceable fragments, operational uselessness, and institutional overreach."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the preservation question from whether a universal verifier works into which claims are formally answerable, under what scope, and with what governed fallback."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow pilot, routing observations, disagreement measures, proof review, and halt criteria are executable, though faithful formalization and abstraction validation remain demanding."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot could prevent destructive false assurance and wasted universal-verifier work, while bounded authority and retention rules limit harms from formalization error."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The candidate supplies no prior-art evidence for novelty.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, compare the proposal with documented digital-preservation verification, significant-properties, emulation, and software-heritage assessment workflows.","evidence_boundary":"This omission affects novelty only; it does not undermine the closed-book structural or causal evaluation."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-faithful transfer with a coherent causal chain, complete mechanism integration, explicit falsifiers, and conservative museum authority controls. Its only material evidentiary weakness concerns novelty, which is not required for the success determination."}