{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__organizational_management","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2f61afbecc1620328ef189ec663dd2943b62086a7cc42be3d1f93dcd244b3a47","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently recognizable organizational failure: an assurance function promises universal terminating approval for an expressive workflow language, with observable symptoms, consequences, and a problem-specific falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transfer preserves the archetype's essential structure: an open-ended encoded class, semantic property, universal exact-decider demand, model-relative boundary evidence, enforceable decidable restriction, explicit unknown behavior, and weaker governed fallbacks."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly targets the overclaim by testing solvability, securing a proven restricted region, enforcing admission, and preventing weaker outputs from inheriting an exact approval guarantee."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent organizational realizations. Load-bearing mechanisms retain their proper roles, including source-to-target reduction, syntactic restriction, labeled fallback routing, and bounded semi-decision without fabricated negatives."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical premises are marked as hypotheses, inferential mappings are labeled, prior art remains explicitly unsearched, and impossibility is conditional on a reviewed semantics-preserving reduction rather than asserted as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The record separately falsifies the alleged problem through finite scope or an existing total decider and falsifies the intervention through failed classification, proof defects, unsafe clearance, or downstream coercion of unknown results."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is allocated among risk, policy, and independent-review roles; the first step is non-production; affected parties and prohibited actions are named; and explicit halt, rollback, and guarantee-revocation conditions constrain deployment."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate reproduces the computability-boundary structure without collapsing undecidability, tractability, bounded checking, recognition, or organizational ambiguity."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in governance roles, workflow authoring, policy semantics, admission control, employee impacts, and accountable escalation, though the actual organizational setting remains hypothetical."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Formal classification, enforceable restriction, guarantee-aware routing, and reclassification can plausibly stop assurance overclaims, conditional on faithful semantics and compliance with admission controls."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and preserves distinct functions for specification, evidence, restriction, fallback, review, uncertainty, records, triggers, and complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts finite-catalog counterevidence, semantic ambiguity, bypass behavior, formalization mismatch, proof error, alarm fatigue, and misuse of impossibility rhetoric."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It converts repeated analyzer failure and forced approval outputs into a model-relative solvability and guarantee-governance problem with explicit restricted and unknown states."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded non-production pilot, seeded breaches, baseline comparison, enforceability checks, independent review, halt conditions, and rollback make the proposal testable, although the reduction and semantic model remain to be produced."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary testing could prevent unsafe approvals and sunk investment while the non-production scope and rollback rules contain risk; restrictive fragments and conservative alarms still carry displacement and fatigue risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The composition is tailored and potentially distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the closed-book packet supplies no comparative novelty evidence."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing workflow-verification and governance practices is unsupported.","repair":"Before making a novelty claim, compare the full composition—formal boundary proof, enforceable fragment, guarantee-aware routing, authority allocation, and recheck record—against documented prior systems.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book record supports structural quality but contains no prior-art search or comparative evidence."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The organizational premises and workflow-language expressiveness remain hypothetical.","repair":"Use the authorized pilot to document actual language constructs, policy semantics, submission bypasses, baseline decisions, and downstream treatment of labeled unknown outputs.","evidence_boundary":"The evaluation establishes a coherent conditional intervention, not that the target organization presently exhibits the stated problem."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The proposal is structurally faithful, conditionally causal, mechanism-complete, falsifiable, and authority-bounded. Its principal evidence limitation concerns novelty and empirical confirmation of the hypothesized organizational setting, neither of which is disguised as established fact."}