{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__statistics_experimental_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"a313a72c1d7a10dc07ba36331ff58c26ce83876893b7addef3cbdd3d1d6d287a","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a domain-specific governance problem involving executable adaptive protocols, statistical-validity certification, and participant-affecting consequences rather than merely restating the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The unrestricted class, total certifier, computability obstruction, enforceable fragment, weaker fallback, and guarantee-drift elements correspond coherently to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly replaces an unsupported binary universal guarantee with an enforceable fragment, reviewed boundary argument, guarantee-aware routing, and explicit UNKNOWN behavior."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All structural components receive domain realizations, and the selected mechanisms have distinct constructive, impossibility, operational, testing, and review roles without obvious guarantee laundering."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The reduction and decidable-fragment conclusions are explicitly labeled as hypotheses pending construction and review; simulations and timeouts are not presented as proof, and no unsupported external evidence is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged unrestricted problem exists in practice, while the intervention falsifier separately tests enforceability, proof validity, contract preservation, and UNKNOWN routing."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is offline, live-study authority remains with the appropriate bodies, prohibited actions are explicit, and rollback is tied to proof, enforcement, and verdict-contract failures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's quantifiers, model relativity, constructive and impossibility branches, enforceable boundary, honest fallback, and reclassification triggers."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The actors, adaptive-protocol substrate, false-positive-control objective, null-family dependence, and governance consequences are credible, though the effective representation of distributions and exact probability comparisons remains underspecified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The halting embedding and restricted-language strategy are plausible and correctly bounded, but their answer preservation and the fragment verifier's statistical correctness remain proof obligations."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and translates each source component into a recognizable experimental-design artifact or obligation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest scope objection, states the analogy break, distinguishes failure modes, and supplies independent problem and intervention falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It converts an unreliable validation workflow into a transparent classification of exact, conservative, bounded, certificate-relative, and unresolved guarantees."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The offline synthetic pilot, enforceable membership check, definitive-verdict audit, proof review, halt conditions, and rollback are executable, although the formal statistical contracts require further specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded offline step can expose dangerous overclaims with little direct participant risk, while authority limits and rollback controls constrain downstream misuse."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness relative to existing statistical verification and adaptive-design governance approaches is not established."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing formal verification, sequential-testing, and adaptive-design certification work is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and state which combination of boundary proof, enforceable protocol fragment, guarantee-aware routing, and governance record is genuinely distinct.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can assess structural novelty only; historical or field-level novelty cannot be established from the packet."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The positive fragment does not yet specify effective encodings for null distributions, rejection events, probability values, or threshold comparisons.","repair":"Define those representations and provide a reviewed totality-and-correctness argument showing that every admitted instance yields an exact contract-respecting verdict.","evidence_boundary":"The packet proposes this proof obligation but does not supply the formal language, probability semantics, or completed proof."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears the reject-first gates through a faithful domain transfer, explicit evidentiary restraint, distinct falsifiers, and strong authority controls. Deep research should concentrate on the formal statistical representation contract and prior-art evidence."}