{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__performing_arts_theatre","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f75d0e831f4a8f04644a0c0e3f4211af0e0345d67b74817168ac4f69d95e0947","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The theatre problem is independently stated through an operational universal-checker claim, observable Boolean misclassification, affected parties, consequences, and a problem falsifier that does not depend on accepting the proposed intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's open-ended class, universal terminating guarantee, enforceable decidable region, explicitly weaker fallback, unknown behavior, and reclassification triggers. Conditional omission of reduction artifacts is justified because no impossibility verdict is asserted."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Enforceable fragment membership, guarantee-aware routing, explicit unresolved states, and reviewed evidence directly interrupt the path from incomplete analysis to unsupported Boolean safety claims."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is substantially complete, mechanism roles are differentiated, counterfactual removal tests identify load-bearing elements, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with their computational roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unrestricted computability is left unresolved, domain mappings are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, and the proposal makes no unsupported theorem, reduction, empirical-performance, or prior-art claim."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged universal-claim failure already exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether routing and labels change erroneous conclusions or expose mismatches."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Operational authority remains with production safety and stage management, artistic alteration remains under artist control, live machinery autonomy is excluded, and false safety or semantic mismatch triggers immediate rollback to existing safeguards."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal transfers the full boundary-mapping logic, including model-relative scope, quantifiers, decidable fragments, weaker guarantees, explicit unresolved states, and recheck conditions."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention is grounded in programmable scores, cue semantics, stage machinery, sensors, rehearsal practice, performer input, artistic control, and established production authority, while explicitly bounding what the formal model represents."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and its principal controls target the stated failure mechanism, though the pilot does not yet define calibrated decision thresholds for demonstrating improvement over expert review."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Nearly every archetype component receives a concrete theatre realization, and proof or reduction components are conditionally deferred without being misrepresented as completed."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies the strongest anti-signature, semantic analogy break, separate falsifiers, expressiveness costs, abstraction unsoundness, override pressure, authority inflation, and rehearsal displacement."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes a general readiness verdict as a scope- and model-relative guarantee problem with enforceable boundaries and labeled degradation modes."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The rehearsal pilot, seeded unsafe variants, comparison modes, halt conditions, and rollback path are actionable, but outcome measurement and acceptance criteria remain somewhat qualitative."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A limited rehearsal deployment offers meaningful audit and safety value with bounded exposure, while abstraction error, artistic exclusion, and misplaced reliance remain material residual risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The transfer is specific and potentially distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no comparative novelty evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot lacks a prespecified rule for deciding whether routing and guarantee labels outperform baseline review.","repair":"Define observable classification errors, scope mismatches, overrides, and production-decision changes, together with an acceptance rule established before the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"This is an operational test-design gap; the packet contains no pilot results."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing theatre automation, show-control verification, and safety-assurance practice is not established.","repair":"Conduct bounded prior-art research before making any novelty claim and distinguish conceptual precedent from theatre-specific implementation precedent.","evidence_boundary":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred closed-book."}],"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 can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and domain-grounded transfer with an honest unresolved boundary, coherent causal controls, distinct falsifiers, and strong authority safeguards. Deeper work should sharpen pilot acceptance criteria and establish prior-art position."}