{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__security_intelligence","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"abb3862433f84b58da728cc416e3aeff55718672165ee43f61075f87b2f0e88d","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a concrete independent failure in unrestricted malware-behavior classification: resource exhaustion and non-observation are consumed as negative verdicts under an unsupported total-exact requirement."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The declared class, semantic property, computation model, quantifiers, impossibility evidence, decidable regions, explicit unknown behavior, fallback guarantees, and recheck controls closely preserve the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formal partitioning plus enforceable routing directly changes the verdict process that creates false negatives and redirects effort away from an impossible unrestricted decider."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and the load-bearing reduction, fragment restriction, proof review, explicit-unknown protocol, and router have distinct necessary roles with coherent removal counterfactuals."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels hypotheses and inferences, limits the impossibility claim to a checked target-specific reduction under declared semantics, and treats the unchecked result and novelty as unresolved rather than established."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the problematic unrestricted claim and state collapse already exist, while the intervention falsifier separately tests labeling improvement and reduction preservation against a named rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial test is confined to a synthetic non-deployable corpus, production authority remains accountable, prohibited actions are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions address unsafe verdict coercion and failed proof review."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer reproduces the archetype's decisive distinctions and operational fallback architecture without collapsing computability, tractability, recognition, approximation, or bounded analysis."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The malware-analysis setting, affected workflows, downstream blocking consequences, adversarial risks, and accountable authority are specific to security-intelligence practice while remaining appropriately bounded."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The chain connects formal specification and checked boundary evidence to enforceable routing, honest state labels, downstream interpretation, and reduced unsupported negative verdicts."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component is translated into a concrete domain contract, record, review, boundary, policy, or follow-on gate, with no material orphan or decorative mapping."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses finite admitted sets, syntactic properties, formalization mismatch, unenforceable restrictions, abstraction unsoundness, ignored labels, excessive unknowns, and boundary exploitation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the task from improving a universal classifier to governing model-relative solvability and selecting the strongest honest guarantee per enforceable region."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The synthetic comparison has observable state-label and interpretation outcomes, although corpus construction, usability thresholds, and downstream label-compliance measurement need further operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded evaluation can expose dangerous verdict collapse and prevent wasted investment while avoiding production blocking, executable deployment, and premature public claims."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book evidence establishes novelty beyond a well-formed domain transfer."}},"weighted_total":92.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing malware-analysis governance, sound static-analysis interfaces, and abstaining classifier practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct bounded prior-art research before making any novelty claim; preserve the candidate's current unsearched status until comparative evidence exists.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural quality but cannot establish external novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; the remaining weakness concerns external novelty evidence rather than a revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, safety-bounded transfer that faithfully maps computability-boundary reasoning into universal semantic malware classification, supplies a plausible operational routing intervention, and distinguishes problem and intervention falsification. Its only clear evidentiary weakness is the deliberately unresolved novelty claim."}