{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__veterinary_medicine","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ff9b9f4f51577eb7259b51a5d5794f03d1a0864485570f2be6656f60d2f58f5c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The veterinary assurance problem is stated independently of the proposed mechanisms, with identifiable actors, observable failure states, consequences, and a problem-specific falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transfer preserves the archetype's essential structure: an unrestricted total-decision request, explicit computational contracts, parallel constructive and impossibility obligations, enforceable restricted classes, honest weaker outputs, and reclassification triggers."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Formal admission rules, guarantee-labelled routing, explicit UNKNOWN behavior, and independent evidence review directly prevent timeouts, simulations, and weaker analyses from becoming unsupported Boolean safety verdicts."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All boundary-mapping components receive coherent domain realizations, and the selected mechanisms retain their distinct functions rather than being treated as interchangeable labels or proof substitutes."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate marks the unrestricted-class claim as conditional, leaves unmatched theorem status unresolved, distinguishes model-relative reachability from clinical safety, and does not claim novelty or empirical validation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged universal assurance demand exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether boundary classification and labelled routing change decisions and reporting."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Clinical authority remains with responsible veterinary personnel, the initial activity is an offline shadow audit, animal-care changes are excluded, and withdrawal conditions address model mismatch, unsafe clearance, coerced outputs, and review overload."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely reproduces the archetype's quantifiers, model contracts, evidence paths, status lattice, restricted regions, fallbacks, and change-control logic."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The actors, welfare objective, physiology and environment assumptions, clinical authority, and animal-harm pathways are credible, though the controller scenario remains abstract and is not tied to a demonstrated veterinary deployment."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention changes the admission, analysis, output vocabulary, review, and governance points that generate unsupported safety claims."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and each realization has a recognizable operational role in controller assurance."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses the finite-class countercase, the program-to-animal analogy break, model unsoundness, unusable false alarms, bypass risk, and confusion between computability and feasibility."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It replaces a misleading universal safety question with a model-relative classification and governed portfolio of exact, sound, bounded, and unresolved guarantees."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The shadow audit is bounded, non-interventional, reproducible, and paired with observable problem and intervention falsifiers plus explicit halt conditions."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposed first step can expose dangerous assurance overclaims before deployment while preserving current clinical workflow and avoiding treatment changes."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty conclusion."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The operational prevalence of unrestricted controller languages and class-wide terminating safety claims in veterinary settings is not established.","repair":"During the proposed audit, document actual controller-language expressiveness, horizon assumptions, current report semantics, and whether vendors or operators make class-wide guarantees.","evidence_boundary":"The present candidate establishes a coherent conditional transfer, not that the triggering problem is common in deployed veterinary systems."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No prior-art comparison supports the novelty classification.","repair":"Compare the proposal with existing veterinary software assurance, medical-device model checking, runtime assurance, and clinical decision-support governance before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"The unsearched status supports no positive or negative novelty inference."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor, identifier change, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"A strong, safety-bounded transfer that preserves the computability-boundary logic and converts it into a practical veterinary-controller assurance workflow. Its principal unresolved issue is evidentiary novelty, with a secondary need to confirm that the hypothesized deployment pattern occurs in practice."}