{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__religious_studies_theology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"c8e173dd11bbcbc9dcab25415a3d1058bc736ef15eca8679716ecae0c1704674","gates":{"G1":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The platform defect is independently coherent and observably specified, but the packet contains no audit or case evidence establishing that such a system actually accepts the claimed class or converts failed search into a theological verdict."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transfer preserves the archetype's class specification, representation contract, guarantee distinctions, enforceable decidable region, explicit unknown state, and governed fallback boundary."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Scope enforcement, a proved fragment decider, witness-based recognition, and distinct abstention labels directly interrupt the stated path from computational failure to substantive theological negation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and the load-bearing mechanisms retain their defining guarantees and limitations. Conditional use of proof enumeration is explicitly tied to an enumerable calculus."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"Claims are carefully marked as hypotheses or inferences, with no apparent fabricated finding, but deployment prevalence, actual language expressiveness, observed labeling behavior, and novelty remain unevidenced."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the proposed problem through an audit of the existing system and the intervention through comparative pilot outcomes, legitimate counterexamples, or failure of the termination argument."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided between computational-label authorization and representational governance, the tool is denied religious authority, the first test is synthetic, and publication halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely preserves the boundary-mapping structure while translating it into formal entailment and consistency analysis."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It distinguishes formal derivability from truth, orthodoxy, lived meaning, and communal legitimacy while recognizing representational authority and unequal formalization resources."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed controls directly prevent timeout and scope failure from becoming negative verdicts, although their relevance to a real target system remains conditional on audit evidence."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and operationally connected to the proposal rather than merely renaming source components."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states its strongest evidentiary gaps, analogy boundary, distinct falsifiers, semantic-model risk, enforcement failure modes, and downstream coercion risk."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It usefully reframes apparent theological conclusions as model-relative computational statuses and separates interpretation defects from solvability defects."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded synthetic pilot, exhaustive finite checks, injected failure states, independent review, halt criteria, and rollback are specified, but comparative measures and a real-system audit remain open."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention could prevent authoritative false findings at low initial exposure, while narrow-fragment exclusion, semantic mismatch, and unequal abstention burdens require continuing governance."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and the closed-book packet supplies no evidence supporting a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The existence and prevalence of the target defect are unestablished.","repair":"Audit an actual formal-religion research platform or documented workflow for its accepted language, termination guarantees, and handling of timeout, malformed, and unsupported inputs.","evidence_boundary":"Until such an audit exists, retain the proposal as a conditional design and do not describe the defect as observed."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The computational status of the intended unrestricted target class is unresolved.","repair":"Specify the actual syntax, semantics, proof calculus, and computation model, then obtain either a checked constructive classification or a valid impossibility argument under those assumptions.","evidence_boundary":"Do not infer undecidability from prover failure, expressive appearance, or analogy with general theorem proving."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot lacks a prespecified comparative measurement contract.","repair":"Define a labeled test corpus and compare the ordinary binary interface with the routed interface on false substantive verdicts, guarantee-label errors, abstentions, scope-check bypasses, and semantic-review failures.","evidence_boundary":"Bounded synthetic results support only the tested encoding and bound, not unrestricted performance or theological adequacy."}],"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":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The proposal is a strong, domain-sensitive structural transfer with a plausible and safe conditional intervention. It cannot advance as an evidenced target-domain finding until an actual defect, the relevant formal language, and prior-art status are investigated."}