{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__sport_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"e7149704388bcf70c010d74b6328a24dfb6d6a080cf68b4be0404daa05c7cd9f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently falsifiable sport-science problem involving universal verification claims, scope drift, and timeout handling, while explicitly acknowledging that the problem disappears for an already bounded decidable deployment."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transfer preserves the archetype's open-ended class, universal guarantee, model-relative boundary, decidable fragments, honest fallback states, and reclassification triggers without equating physical athletes with programs."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention directly changes the decision pathway that creates unsupported safety verdicts: it formalizes scope, tests solvability claims, enforces restricted fragments, labels weaker guarantees, and blocks timeout from becoming safety clearance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive coherent domain realizations, and selected mechanisms retain their proper roles. Proof methods establish boundaries, restricted verification supplies model-relative evidence, the router governs dispatch, and records preserve provenance rather than substituting for proof."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate makes no fabricated scientific or theorem claim. Domain incidence and decidable-region claims are marked as hypotheses, the impossibility conclusion remains unresolved until a checked reduction exists, and model validity is separated from formal verification."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the supposed open-ended requirement actually exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether boundary mapping improves false-clearance and guarantee-ambiguity outcomes under a declared utility constraint."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Athlete-exposure authority remains with sports-medicine or governance personnel, the first test is non-interventional, prohibited actions are explicit, and withdrawal conditions cover false clearance, scope bypass, proof defects, and operational influence."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely preserves the archetype's quantifiers, computational model dependence, proof obligations, restricted regions, explicit unknown states, and guarantee traceability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Actors, modeled states, governance roles, and model-to-athlete validity limits are specific to sport science, although the presence of unrestricted executable model languages in actual practice remains hypothetical."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed controls plausibly prevent unsupported model-relative safety claims, but their practical benefit depends on the hypothesized verification requirement and on abstractions producing sufficiently usable outputs."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and functionally translated, including proof review, scope enforcement, nontermination policy, uncertainty residue, authority records, and the complexity follow-on."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates the bounded-class objection, representation-versus-reality break, formalization failure, false alarms, scope laundering, oracle assumptions, and discouragement of useful statistical work."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes a Boolean safety-analyzer request into a governed portfolio of model-relative guarantees while retaining conventional validation as a distinct neighboring activity."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded shadow test, exhaustive reference library, routing labels, halt conditions, and comparison outcomes are operationally credible, though the usable-answer threshold and library construction protocol are not yet specified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The non-authoritative pilot and authority boundaries constrain immediate harm, while residual risks remain from model invalidity, false alarms, scope exclusion, and institutional overreading of formal results."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports novelty beyond the internal distinctiveness of the composition."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The existence and prevalence of the proposed unrestricted verification requirement in sport-science practice are not demonstrated.","repair":"Collect representative specifications, interfaces, or stakeholder requirements and determine whether they contain universal scope, open-ended executable models, or timeout-derived verdicts.","evidence_boundary":"The current record supports a coherent conditional intervention, not a prevalence claim about deployed sport-science systems."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The shadow-test utility constraint is named but not operationally fixed.","repair":"Predeclare the model-library inclusion rules, label-confusion measures, usable-answer definition, and minimum acceptable utility before evaluation.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed test is falsifiable in outline, but its decision rule cannot yet be independently reproduced."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty comparison has been performed against formal verification, hybrid-systems safety, or model-governance practice.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and identify which elements are established practice, domain adaptations, or genuinely distinctive composition choices.","evidence_boundary":"No novelty inference is warranted from an unsearched record."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repair record, so no improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, causally coherent, and safety-bounded transfer. Its strongest feature is strict separation of model-relative verification from real-world athlete safety; its principal unresolved weakness is evidentiary rather than structural, especially domain incidence and novelty."}