{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__systems_cybernetics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f06a6ae8848b3f2740201d625ea89400338dd39b20162219de068dd58993d6da","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently recognizable through an unrestricted Boolean viability-assurance claim, timeout misuse, and absent scope states, without relying on the source archetype for its significance."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transfer preserves the open-ended class, universal terminating guarantee, explicit computation model, solvability boundary, restricted regions, honest fallback, and reclassification triggers."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formal contracts, constructive and impossibility evidence, enforceable fragments, guarantee-labelled routing, and explicit abstention directly target false safety verdicts and unsupported universal automation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have defined causal roles and removal consequences, and rejected mechanisms have relevant reasons rather than ornamental inclusion."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate marks unsettled mappings and benefits as hypotheses, describes the reduction as an attempt, declares prior art unsearched, and preserves mismatched-model and proof-gap uncertainty."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier audits whether the universal claim exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests routing, fragment enforcement, guarantee labelling, and agreement with bounded reference results."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized step is non-actuating and sandboxed, production authority remains with designated safety governance, affected parties are named, and explicit halt, withdrawal, and rollback conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely preserves the archetype's quantifiers, model relativity, evidence obligations, status distinctions, restricted subclasses, and governed fallbacks."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Viability envelopes, adaptive feedback, observability, environmental interaction, control authority, and reclassification under changing system capabilities are native systems-and-cybernetics concerns."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from formal scope through checked classification to labelled routing is coherent, although the decisive reduction and real abstraction soundness remain to be established."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, internally consistent, and supported by explicit mechanism dispositions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates bounded-task, finite-language, complexity-only, physical-model mismatch, unsafe abstraction, coerced abstention, and stale-record objections."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a binary simulation-centered assurance question with a model-relative portfolio of exact, sound incomplete, bounded, and abstaining guarantees."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The sandbox pilot has observable outputs, bounded references, rejection conditions, and rollback, while the unrestricted proof and deployment-valid abstraction require later work."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The first step can expose dangerous guarantee mislabelling without live actuation or relaxation of existing controls, and the stopping rules sharply limit downside."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The combination is potentially distinctive, but the declared prior-art status provides no evidence for a novelty conclusion."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The unrestricted impossibility boundary is not yet supported by an exhibited answer-preserving reduction or independently checked certificate.","repair":"Before any production boundary claim, instantiate the source-to-target encoding, prove totality and preservation, and obtain independent review under the stated computation model.","evidence_boundary":"Until those obligations close, unrestricted undecidability remains a hypothesis and cannot authorize withdrawal of assurance methods."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The soundness of the proposed abstraction for the chosen viability semantics is not established.","repair":"Define the concrete and abstract transition semantics, prove the required simulation or over-approximation relation, and test verdict labelling against the bounded exhaustive reference.","evidence_boundary":"Passing bounded cases supports implementation validation but does not itself prove soundness beyond the tested corpus."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No prior-art assessment supports the proposal's novelty.","repair":"Compare the integrated boundary-record, fragment-routing, and abstention workflow with existing formal assurance and hybrid-systems verification practice.","evidence_boundary":"This research affects novelty attribution, not the present structural-fit judgment."}],"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 passes the reject-first gates as a faithful, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safely bounded transfer. Its principal research obligations are the actual impossibility certificate, abstraction-soundness proof, and novelty assessment."}