{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__psychology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"63627bfc20b01e6fa74d4d4cbdf2ac4dd8f3b5f2b3c4559ada5009fe54b5bdc7","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a domain-specific failure involving executable psychological models, forced Boolean outputs, and downstream safety interpretation; the problem remains intelligible without relying on the archetype label."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unbounded class, total terminating guarantee, model-relative boundary, restricted regions, honest fallbacks, and traceable guarantees correspond directly and coherently."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formalizing the class, checking constructive and impossibility certificates, enforcing fragments, and preserving UNKNOWN directly address overclaiming, false clearance, and wasted universal-solver effort."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, mechanism roles are differentiated, rejected mechanisms have coherent reasons, and load-bearing methods retain their essential guarantees and limitations."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Undecidability, prevalence, and effectiveness are not presented as established findings; the candidate explicitly leaves unmatched reductions unresolved and marks novelty as unsearched."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the computability-status failure exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the proposed routing and abstention lever improves decisions with useful coverage."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed first step is offline and bounded, authority is separated between research and human-facing use, prohibited actions are explicit, and withdrawal conditions address semantic, proof, enforcement, and interface failures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining quantifiers, model relativity, proof obligations, restricted solvable regions, and non-deceptive fallback structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The realization is credible for computational psychology and digital-intervention modeling and carefully separates formal models from people, though no concrete deployed language or observed project is supplied."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention acts on the stated failure through enforceable scope, checked certificates, guarantee-aware routing, and abstention; downstream compliance remains an important dependency."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component receives a specific domain realization, and the selected mechanisms form a coherent boundary-classification and fallback system."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate anticipates decidable deployed models, construct-validity failures, abstraction unsoundness, unusable abstention rates, boundary bypass, and theorem-to-person overreach."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully separates formal solvability from simulation performance and empirical prediction, redirecting a narrow but consequential class of psychology-modeling disputes."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The offline pilot, matched constructive and reduction attempts, synthetic comparisons, review requirements, and halt conditions are executable, but outcome measures and a concrete language remain unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary clarification could prevent false assurances and wasted effort at limited pilot risk, while abstraction errors, interface misuse, and false formal confidence remain material hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book novelty determination is supported."}},"weighted_total":78.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal does not instantiate the analysis in a named executable model language or provide the contemplated reduction or constructive certificate.","repair":"Select a representative language, freeze its semantics and target property, and submit the resulting proof artifacts to independent review before making a boundary claim.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports a rigorous procedure for obtaining a verdict, not an actual verdict about any deployed psychological-model class."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The comparative pilot does not operationally define false Boolean conclusions, useful coverage, or acceptable UNKNOWN consumption.","repair":"Predefine labeled test cases, interface-level outcome metrics, coverage thresholds, and checks that downstream systems preserve abstention and scope labels.","evidence_boundary":"Causal benefit is plausible from the mechanism chain, but no comparative result is embedded."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to formal verification, computational modeling, and digital-intervention governance is unknown.","repair":"Conduct targeted prior-art review before making originality claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly reports an unsearched prior-art status."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered earlier repairs."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"A strong, internally coherent transfer for executable psychological models that preserves computability distinctions and contains unusually careful model-to-person, authority, and abstention boundaries. Its principal limitation is evidentiary rather than structural: the proposed formal classification, comparative benefit, and novelty have not yet been established for a concrete language or deployment."}