{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__operations_research","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"5091d5e2b5d0cd6d419fd4c3afef0ece868d560f63eb92278180708ec99656fb","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a concrete operations-research service failure involving executable model semantics, solver guarantees, and false infeasibility outputs; it stands independently of the source archetype terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted model class, universal terminating guarantee, computability boundary, restricted fragments, and weaker labeled fallbacks correspond directly to the archetype structure without collapsing computability into complexity."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The causal chain connects expressive callbacks to the need to resolve embedded computation, conditions the impossibility conclusion on a valid reduction, and links enforceable restrictions and status-preserving routing to the targeted operational failures."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain-specific realizations, while load-bearing mechanisms have distinct roles in impossibility evidence, constructive evidence, input enforcement, routing, status semantics, and proof review."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate marks the computability premise and boundary as hypotheses, treats the reduction as an obligation rather than an established result, acknowledges unsearched prior art, and keeps the production classification unresolved if review fails."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes a decidable but resource-limited service from a computability-boundary problem, while the intervention falsifier separately tests proof validity, routing effects, and coverage loss."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is allocated among platform, model, and operational owners; the initial test is offline; irreversible use of weak outputs is excluded; and explicit halt and rollback conditions preserve current production routing."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's class specification, universal quantifier, model-relative impossibility inquiry, decidable-fragment strategy, and honest fallback structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Executable constraints, LP and MILP fragments, finite horizons, feasibility witnesses, optimality claims, solver timeouts, and downstream planning decisions are used in ways consistent with operations research."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed leverage is coherent and carefully conditional, but its decisive impossibility link still depends on matching deployed callback semantics and completing the reduction."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and operationally connected to selected mechanisms rather than serving as a nominal checklist."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts finite-language counterevidence, encoding failure, overrestriction, unenforceable membership, status coercion, proof gaps, and complexity confounding."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a generic solver-performance narrative with a sharper separation among infeasibility, resource exhaustion, undecidability, restricted exact solving, and explicitly weaker guarantees."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The offline formalization, independent review, bounded fixtures, routing comparison, observable statuses, and rollback rule form a viable test, although production enforcement details remain to be designed."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The approach could prevent false infeasibility and wasted universal-solver investment, with meaningful but explicitly managed risks from expressiveness loss, semantic mismatch, and ignored unknown outputs."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the composition or application is novel."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repair history against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-grounded, explicitly conditional about unresolved proof obligations, operationally falsifiable, and safely bounded. Its principal evidentiary gap concerns novelty rather than the validity of the proposed computability-boundary test."}