{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__medicine_healthcare","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"7c71392bd82a225e31e3f210a5a37af876e86df25d3e559cca99237d0c4278ca","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independent CDS governance problem: universal clearance claims are being inferred from finite tests, timeouts, and binary release decisions."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted class, computation model, universal quantifiers, impossibility boundary, enforceable decidable fragment, explicit unknown state, and governed fallback closely correspond to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention directly removes the unsupported universal guarantee by classifying solvability, restricting admissible programs, proving supported verifiers, and labeling weaker fallback outputs."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, and the selected mechanisms have distinct load-bearing, supporting, and safety roles with coherent counterfactual-removal statements."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not present a completed reduction, proof, pilot result, or empirical benefit as established evidence. Claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, and proof validity is made conditional on matching semantics and assumptions."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the supposedly unrestricted deployment class is actually bounded and already decidable, while the intervention falsifier separately tests comparative benefit and false-clearance behavior."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Release authority remains with accountable clinical governance, the analyzer cannot authorize care, the initial test is retrospective and nondeployed, prohibited uses are explicit, and halt conditions address false clearance and scope bypass."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining boundary analysis, guarantee taxonomy, decidable-region design, unknown behavior, proof obligations, and reclassification triggers."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation is specific to executable CDS governance and explicitly distinguishes formal program conformance from medical truth and clinical appropriateness."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The chain from formal specification through impossibility assessment, enforceable restriction, proved verification, labeled fallback, governance review, and rechecking is direct and internally coherent."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and supported by mechanisms whose operational responsibilities and limitations are clearly separated."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest boundary challenge, the formalization gap, abstraction unsoundness, unenforceable membership, downstream label misuse, coverage collapse, and stale records."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces an undifferentiated binary safety-clearance objective with model-relative guarantees, enforceable scope, explicit uncertainty, and retained human authority."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A retrospective frozen-module pilot, reference checks, comparison baseline, observable failure conditions, and rollback rules are supplied, but measurement procedures and decision thresholds remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The first step limits patient exposure and includes conservative stops, while false reassurance, governance burden, exclusion costs, and pervasive inconclusiveness remain material risks requiring pilot measurement."},"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":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot does not define operational measures for detecting guarantee overreach, label adherence, coverage loss, or governance burden.","repair":"Before execution, preregister observable endpoints, comparison procedures, and acceptance thresholds while preserving the false-clearance stop rule.","evidence_boundary":"No pilot data or validated measurement protocol is supplied."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The candidate provides no prior-art evidence for novelty.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review focused on formal verification, restricted CDS languages, safety-case governance, and abstaining analyzers before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"The classification explicitly marks prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor, no changed problem identifier, no changed causal-lever identifier, and no registered repairs to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate. It is a faithful, clinically grounded computability-boundary transfer with explicit falsifiers, conservative authority boundaries, and an executable initial test; its principal evidence gap concerns novelty rather than structural validity."}