{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__speech_language_pathology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"45c31040e9ebfcf4099ee545cdb1066493ce5a37bfcc53bcbb59994aef54e4ba","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The AAC verification problem is independently specified through actors, observable failure states, clinical consequences, and a problem falsifier; it does not depend on the analogy being true."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's essential structure: an explicit class and representation, universal quantifiers, model-relative solvability, constructive and impossibility evidence, enforceable restricted regions, honest fallback states, and reclassification triggers."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The enforceable policy-language boundary directly changes which verification guarantees may be issued, while routing and result labels prevent timeout or unresolved analysis from becoming clinical clearance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, and the selected mechanisms retain their defining obligations, including proof-backed exactness, semantics-preserving reduction, sound abstraction, syntactic fragment enforcement, and explicit UNKNOWN behavior."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not assert that deployed AAC policies are undecidable. Expressiveness, reduction validity, and fragment decidability are explicitly conditional or hypothetical, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and absent evidence remains unresolved."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the unrestricted class and universal claim actually exist, while the intervention falsifier separately tests classification correctness, termination, and label comprehension."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is a retrospective sandbox pilot; authority is shared across clinical, user-care, and software-safety roles; live blocking, intent replacement, unsupported impossibility claims, and timeout laundering are excluded; halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer closely reproduces the computability-boundary structure and preserves the distinctions among exact decision, restricted decision, sound incomplete analysis, bounded analysis, and unresolved status."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal is meaningfully grounded in AAC governance, communicative agency, clinical release review, and device-policy behavior, although the existence and semantics of the proposed programmable policy class remain unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Mechanically restricting the accepted language and binding outputs to proof-supported guarantees plausibly prevents unsupported clearance, conditional on faithful runtime semantics and downstream enforcement."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and operationally differentiated, with direct translations for evidence, scope, fallback, review, traceability, and complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest finite-domain alternative, states the analogy boundary, supplies independent problem and intervention falsifiers, and identifies both formal and clinical failure modes."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It converts retries and larger timeouts into a model-relative solvability and guarantee-governance question, revealing restriction, abstention, and proof review as distinct intervention options."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The sandbox pilot, enforceable fragment, output taxonomy, bounded corpus, and rollback criteria are testable, though concrete policy syntax, properties, corpus composition, and reviewer thresholds still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The staged and reversible pilot could prevent false assurances while limiting immediate clinical exposure, but excessive restriction or UNKNOWN results could delay access or reduce communicative agency."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the proposed composition is novel within AAC verification or adjacent clinical software assurance."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The actual expressiveness and runtime semantics of deployed AAC policy languages are not established.","repair":"Obtain a versioned language and runtime specification, then determine whether the accepted class is finite, syntactically restricted, or capable of the computation required by any proposed reduction.","evidence_boundary":"Until that specification is examined, the unrestricted impossibility branch remains a hypothesis and must not be presented as a domain fact."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot lacks operational definitions for a clinically material property and for reliable reviewer discrimination among result labels.","repair":"Predefine the formal property, bounded history model, corpus construction, expected verdicts, and a comprehension criterion for exact, alarm, UNKNOWN, out-of-scope, and tool-failure labels.","evidence_boundary":"A successful formal check supports only the modeled property and behavior; it does not establish overall AAC safety or communicative usability."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No novelty comparison is available.","repair":"Compare the composition against AAC software assurance, dialogue-policy verification, clinical decision-support governance, and safety-case practices before claiming originality.","evidence_boundary":"Structural quality and usefulness do not themselves demonstrate novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, no prior repairs are registered, and neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"This is a strong conditional transfer that preserves computability-boundary logic, translates the full component set, and adds credible clinical authority and rollback controls. Its success rests on epistemic restraint: the proposal evaluates whether an unrestricted boundary exists rather than claiming that AAC verification is already known to be undecidable. Deeper research should establish the deployed language semantics, pilot definitions, and novelty landscape before any public impossibility or originality claim."}