{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__neuroscience","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"77b963f458a8694d873b7bf8c1bceb4b020d838175f0338e969b0e48fa4b7e83","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independent computational-neuroscience governance problem with domain actors, observable failure behavior, consequences, and a problem-specific falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted reachability requirement, explicit model contract, proof obligations, decidable fragments, honest fallback states, and reclassification triggers closely preserve the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formalizing the class, proving restricted totality or unrestricted impossibility, enforcing scope, and routing by justified guarantees directly targets false certainty and wasted universal-search effort."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain realizations, while selected mechanisms have differentiated load-bearing, supporting, testing, and safety roles with explicit removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not claim that the key reduction or restricted procedure has already been established; it marks them as hypotheses, requires independent checking, and bounds conclusions to formal model languages."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged unrestricted failure exists, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether boundary evidence and routing can be established and improve pilot outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned, the first step is limited to a toy formal language, biological and clinical extrapolations are excluded, and failed proof or formalization triggers rollback to unresolved status."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's quantifiers, model relativity, constructive and impossibility branches, status lattice, restricted regions, fallback behavior, and recheck logic."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Executable neural-circuit models, activity regimes, input histories, stochasticity, numerical semantics, and neuroscience claim interpretation are concrete, though the central theorem work remains primarily formal-computational."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from formal specification through checked classification to guarantee-aware routing is credible, but its applicability depends on completing the proposed embedding and finding a scientifically useful restricted class."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and functionally translated, including proof review, uncertainty residue, enforceable scope, termination conditions, and the complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate survives the strongest objections by distinguishing finite bounded cases, empirical semantics, biological reality, formal undecidability, and practical complexity."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a misleading simulation-success framing with a model-relative solvability classification and an explicit trade among exactness, scope, termination, and unknown behavior."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The toy-language pilot, bounded cases, independent review, output-state checks, and rollback are executable, although producing a valid reduction and useful fragment may require substantial formal work."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing could prevent major wasted effort and overclaiming, while scoped authorization and rollback substantially contain the main scientific and downstream risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book evidence establishes novelty."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No evidence supports novelty relative to existing neural-model reachability, hybrid-systems verification, or computational-neuroscience governance work.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and state whether the contribution is a new theorem, a new domain formulation, or an operational synthesis.","evidence_boundary":"This evaluation can credit structural quality but cannot infer novelty from an explicitly unsearched record."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repair history."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"A strong, carefully bounded transfer that preserves the computability-boundary structure, supplies an auditable pilot and safeguards, and avoids extending formal-model claims to biological reality. Its principal unresolved issue is novelty evidence, while the proposed theorem and fragment work appropriately remain test obligations rather than asserted results."}