{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__military_strategic_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"316b53b7f4445b49d8a0cc8e6c1bea654f96a25a5146d38d7506d286d1ef2aee","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently intelligible assurance problem: deployment decisions currently overgeneralize from finite or ambiguous analysis across an unspecified policy and environment class. The diagnosis does not depend on accepting the proposed restriction-and-routing intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's essential structure: an unrestricted class, a total exact demand, model-relative constructive or impossibility evidence, enforceable decidable regions, and weaker fallbacks that retain explicit unknown states."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The causal chain directly attacks overclaiming by fixing the formal contracts, testing constructive and impossibility paths under those contracts, enforcing restricted scope, labeling fallback guarantees, and triggering reclassification when assumptions change."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete domain realization, and the selected mechanisms have differentiated analytical, operational, testing, and safety roles. Rejected mechanisms are rejected for reasons consistent with their computational function rather than omitted without analysis."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal does not assert that the military policy class is already proved undecidable. It treats the embedding, decidable fragment, and operational benefit as conditional or hypothetical, preserves unresolved status, and supplies no invented citations or empirical results."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed scope and labeling defect exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether routing and explicit uncertainty improve assurance behavior and yield a useful assured subclass. Counterevidence and analogy-break conditions further expose distinct failure routes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Deployment authority remains with the designated commander, normative ownership and independent assurance roles are separated, the initial test is sandboxed, live engagement is excluded, and explicit halt, withdrawal, and human-review conditions bound the pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely reproduces the archetype's quantifiers, model contracts, evidence obligations, status distinctions, enforceable restrictions, and honest fallback behavior."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Mission policies, rules of engagement, command authority, adversarial traces, and deployment decisions make the transfer credible, although much of the operative substrate remains formal verification rather than strategic theory itself."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"Each intervention step addresses a named failure mode, and the proposal correctly conditions impossibility on a faithful embedding while preserving constructive, restricted, and unresolved alternatives."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally translated, with especially strong treatment of representation, assumptions, proof review, uncertainty labels, scope enforcement, records, and recheck triggers."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates the strongest no-fit case, rejects a loose halting analogy, names model and abstraction failures, and supplies separate falsifiers and rollback triggers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a binary demand for universal clearance with a governed classification of exact, restricted, sound-incomplete, bounded, escalated, and unresolved assurance."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The sandboxed synthetic-language pilot, seeded violations, within-bound exhaustion, label measurements, and halt conditions are executable, but usefulness and comparative improvement lack prespecified acceptance thresholds."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The approach can prevent both false clearance and wasted pursuit of impossible assurance, while material residual risks remain from model mismatch, expressiveness loss, false alarms, stale records, and slow escalation."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet provides no evidence that this military-assurance formulation or intervention package is novel."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The pilot's intervention falsifier uses comparative improvement and usefulness without operational acceptance criteria.","repair":"Predeclare observable error categories, routing outcomes, scope coverage, review latency, and decision rules that determine whether the intervention outperforms the baseline.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values require mission-specific operational input and cannot be inferred from this closed-book packet."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Formal assurance can remain internally sound while representing the wrong rules of engagement or environment behavior.","repair":"Add an independent semantic-validation procedure linking each formal predicate and environmental assumption to accountable operational owners and representative mission cases.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a governance role split but supplies no validation evidence for any actual formalization."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No novelty or prior-art evidence supports the transfer's originality.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review covering autonomous-systems assurance cases, formal rules-of-engagement verification, runtime assurance, model checking, and governed abstention interfaces.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty must remain unclaimed until external research is performed."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs or revision evidence to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, causally coherent, safety-bounded transfer that can advance to deeper research. Its principal evidence gap is novelty, while the main operational refinement is to precommit pilot acceptance criteria and validate semantic fidelity independently."}