{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__robotics_automation","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"12fb23c58595018bab21beaf9dc7f371005423077090c1e975d595951c47c196","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The universal collision-verification problem is specified independently of the proposed boundary-mapping and fallback intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The open-ended class, universal guarantee, model-relative classification, decidable restrictions, explicit unknown state, and complexity follow-on closely correspond to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formal admission, matched proofs, guarantee-preserving routing, and explicit abstention directly interrupt timeout-based safety clearance and unsupported impossibility claims."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent robotics translations, and selected mechanisms retain their proper roles, limitations, and reduction direction."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The production problem class, prior art, abstraction soundness, and robotics-specific answer-preserving reduction are not supplied; the candidate appropriately identifies these as unresolved hypotheses."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier is distinct from pilot tests of the intervention, and the intervention has observable failure conditions involving missed collisions, admission errors, and rejected proofs."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized work is confined to non-actuating models, deployment authority is preserved, affected parties are named, and halt and rollback conditions prevent pilot evidence from becoming clearance."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's quantifiers, status lattice, proof obligations, restricted regions, unknown behavior, and reclassification triggers."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The translation uses controller syntax, dynamics, geometry, sensing, traces, collision reachability, and safety authority, but no concrete production semantics or controller language is established."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention plausibly prevents false safety labels and wasted universal-solver work, conditional on enforceable admission, sound abstractions, and valid constructive or impossibility evidence."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed component has a specific and role-consistent robotics realization, including review, residue, traceability, termination, and complexity assessment."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate identifies the finite-hardware analogy break, the complexity alternative, abstraction unsoundness, enforcement failure, label loss, and reduction failure, though these threats remain empirically unresolved."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces an undifferentiated verification demand with model-relative solvability classes and governed exact, sound-incomplete, bounded, and unknown outcomes."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The non-actuating bounded pilot, mechanical admission checks, cross-method comparison, label audit, and explicit halt criteria are executable, but formal artifacts and acceptance thresholds need completion."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Early boundary classification and conservative routing could avert deceptive clearance and wasted effort, while retained authority and rollback controls limit harm from proof or abstraction defects."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports novelty within robotics verification or safety assurance practice."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The unrestricted collision-reachability boundary lacks an instantiated answer-preserving reduction or constructive decider.","repair":"Formalize the source problem, controller encoding, plant and environment semantics, collision predicate, totality, computability, and both directions of answer preservation; obtain independent review.","evidence_boundary":"Until that artifact passes review, the unrestricted class must remain unresolved rather than undecidable."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The actual production input class may be finite and effectively enumerable, which would move the project from computability analysis to complexity assessment.","repair":"Inventory the deployed controller language, numerical semantics, state bounds, trace horizon, environment nondeterminism, and external capabilities, then mechanically compare that class with the formal target.","evidence_boundary":"The present diagnosis applies only to the declared unrestricted formal class, not automatically to bounded physical deployments."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposed sound abstraction has no demonstrated simulation or over-approximation relation to the concrete robot and environment semantics.","repair":"Define and verify the abstraction relation, then challenge it with independently generated bounded counterexamples and known collision cases before permitting any safety label.","evidence_boundary":"A verdict is sound only relative to the modeled semantics and cannot cover omitted physical faults, sensing failures, or human interactions."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and overlap with established robotics verification and assurance methods are unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review covering controller-language restrictions, hybrid-system reachability, abstraction-based verification, runtime assurance, and safety-case guarantee labeling.","evidence_boundary":"No originality or comparative-advantage claim is justified from the closed-book packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior candidate comparison, and no registered repairs addressed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally strong and safety-conscious robotics transfer with coherent mechanisms and falsifiers. Its decisive boundary claims remain conditional because the deployed class, formal reduction, abstraction soundness, and prior art are not evidenced in the packet."}