{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__nanotechnology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2645afdd6349ff5fa8a800728b82a31532aa025da9cdcdf937c8f5c17b5cdfe5","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a domain-specific verification failure with concrete actors, observable behaviors, consequences, and objectives independent of the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The open-ended universal verifier, implicit computation model, uncertain decidability boundary, restricted fragments, and explicit fallback states closely correspond to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formalizing the class and model, testing constructive and impossibility routes, enforcing decidable restrictions, and preserving UNKNOWN directly target the causes of false universal guarantees."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain translations, and selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, testing, or safety roles with explicit removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Undecidability, abstraction soundness, and decidable coverage are bounded as hypotheses or proof obligations; timeouts and bounded demonstrations are explicitly denied evidentiary force beyond their scope."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate separately states evidence that would dissolve the computability-boundary diagnosis and outcomes that would falsify the routing intervention even if the diagnosis remains true."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is confined to non-released benchmarks, fabrication and release authority remain external, prohibited interpretations are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions address model and labeling failures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full boundary-mapping logic, including model-relative classification, parallel proof routes, restricted regions, honest fallback, and reclassification triggers."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The translation uses relevant self-assembly representations, trajectories, stochastic and environmental assumptions, finite populations, fabrication exposure, and state-space concerns, though no particular assembly formalism is yet fixed."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention plausibly prevents unsupported Boolean verdicts and redirects exact verification toward enforceable regions, but its useful coverage depends on formalization and sound-abstraction results not yet demonstrated."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, internally consistent, and supported by mechanism dispositions that distinguish mathematical proof, operational routing, governance, and review."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts the strongest finite-state alternative, invalid program analogies, model-to-physics gaps, abstraction unsoundness, weak coverage, label collapse, and complexity."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces an undifferentiated verifier-development effort with a governed classification of exact, bounded, one-sided, unresolved, and out-of-scope cases."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The benchmark-only first step, proof obligations, comparative modes, output-label checks, and halt conditions are executable, but the grammar, corpus, metrics, and formal outcome property remain to be instantiated."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing could prevent costly overclaiming and unsafe approvals at modest pilot risk, while formalization error and institutionalized stale conclusions remain meaningful hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The application is thoughtfully specialized, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty in self-assembly verification."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no evidence supporting novelty or distinguishing it from existing formal verification work on programmable self-assembly.","repair":"During deep research, compare the proposed boundary map and routed guarantee contract with prior self-assembly verification, model-checking, and formal tile-assembly approaches before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation can establish structural quality but cannot determine the state of the external literature."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot remains underspecified at the level needed for execution.","repair":"Instantiate the grammar, transition semantics, outcome predicate, benchmark inclusion rules, routing metrics, and downstream label-comprehension test before running the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate provides a sound test architecture but not an implementation-ready protocol."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, so no improvement relative to an earlier candidate can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-grounded translation that preserves computability-boundary distinctions, treats undecidability as a testable hypothesis, supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, and confines authority appropriately. Deep research should now instantiate the formal model and evaluate prior art without upgrading unresolved claims."}