{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__accounting_auditing","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2fec08d240250316aad2c3495018f1594dc8eab3f057e9bf52bc309f8ae88810","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal states a domain-native close-risk problem with actors, observable states, consequences, and an objective that remain intelligible without the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Coupled checkpoint transitions, invariant exception combinations, modal gains, residuals, drift, scope, and traceability correspond coherently to the archetype rather than merely borrowing spectral vocabulary."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever changes audit-test allocation through qualified modal persistence and outcome sensitivity, with an equal-effort baseline and a distinct intervention falsifier. Its actual incremental benefit remains unverified."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All required components are translated, selected mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, unsuitable mechanisms are rejected for relevant reasons, and conditioning, coupling, gap, residual, drift, and interpretation limits are retained. Operator identifiability is still underspecified."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"No domain observations, pilot results, or prior-art review establish recurring modal propagation, estimability, comparative benefit, or novelty. The candidate labels these claims as hypotheses and supplies no fabricated support, but closed-book adequacy cannot be established."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled patterns add explanatory value beyond coordinate baselines, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether mode-guided allocation improves held-out audit outcomes at equal effort."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is retrospective and authorized, audit authority remains with the auditor, consequential automated and personnel actions are excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect data and baseline procedures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transformation, modal structure, selection logic, intervention mapping, residual checks, drift monitoring, and interpretation boundaries form a faithful end-to-end correspondence."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal respects ledger lineage, materiality-informed planning, mandated procedures, professional judgment, and audit authority, although the availability of suitable transition data is not established."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":2,"reason":"Targeting persistent coupled exception patterns could improve evidence allocation, but the packet does not establish that a high-dimensional checkpoint operator can be identified from the scoped observations or that modal sensitivity predicts audit consequence."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a specific accounting realization, and the mappings preserve traceability, residual visibility, local validity, coupling, and governance."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate confronts isolated errors, calendar effects, leakage, nonlinearity, regime change, degeneracy, residual structure, and missed baseline items, but does not fully answer the operator-identification challenge."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes close risk from independent account thresholds to traceable combinations that persist or amplify across checkpoints while preserving ordinary audit judgment."},"practicality_testability":{"score":2,"reason":"A retrospective equal-effort comparison is bounded and measurable, but effective dimension, independent transition sufficiency, estimator choice, regularization, uncertainty, and endpoint definitions require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains come from earlier evidence targeting, while retrospective use, exclusions, qualification gates, and rollback substantially limit harm; false reassurance and displaced attention remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so neither novelty nor differentiation from existing audit analytics is evidenced."}},"weighted_total":72.5,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["causal_plausibility","practicality_testability","novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The load-bearing square transition operator may be underidentified relative to the effective account-entity-control state dimension.","repair":"Preregister the sampling unit, effective dimension, estimator, regularization, leakage controls, uncertainty procedure, and recoverability criteria before decomposing or ranking modes.","evidence_boundary":"Conditioning, gap, and residual checks performed after fitting do not by themselves show that the operator or retained subspace is identifiable."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The packet supplies no empirical support for reproducible coupled propagation or improved audit allocation and no prior-art evidence for novelty.","repair":"Obtain traceable domain evidence, run the held-out equal-effort pilot, and conduct a documented prior-art comparison against multivariate audit-risk and process-mining approaches.","evidence_boundary":"Until those results exist, prevalence, benefit, and novelty must remain hypotheses."}],"repairs":[{"repair_id":"repair_operator_identifiability","target":"Operator identifiability and held-out validation","operation_code":"SPECIFY_TEST","affected_identifiers":["coupled_close_exception_propagation","mode_guided_audit_test_allocation"],"acceptance_test":"Preregister the effective state dimension, independent transition count, estimator and regularization, leakage controls, uncertainty procedure, qualification thresholds, and held-out comparison; demonstrate recoverability of the fitted operator and retained subspace before testing audit outcomes.","materially_distinct":true,"supersedes":null,"repair_fingerprint":"965522c3c80df4bf910a4ae4e58c0f98b452c40c67bd0e1818ea33b3f64ee654"},{"repair_id":"repair_domain_novelty_evidence","target":"Domain and novelty evidence","operation_code":"BOUND_EVIDENCE","affected_identifiers":["coupled_close_exception_propagation","mode_guided_audit_test_allocation"],"acceptance_test":"Supply traceable evidence about recurring coupled close exceptions, report the preregistered held-out comparison with the ordinary baseline, and document a prior-art search against relevant audit analytics and process-mining methods; retain hypothesis labels wherever support remains absent.","materially_distinct":true,"supersedes":null,"repair_fingerprint":"194f98bc61af4a38369d34c6d380fcedfd6906b845c8635d051e97917c590f2f"}],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"MIXED","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers. Remaining weakness is conceptual because the domain premise and incremental benefit lack evidence, and operational because operator identification and validation are underspecified."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, domain-aware, falsifiable, and safely bounded. Its decisive unresolved issues are empirical support, operator identifiability, comparative outcome evidence, and prior-art evidence; these require research and a more explicit validation design before success can be established."}