{"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 close-exception problem is independently stated in accounting terms, has observable consequences, and does not depend on accepting the source analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The checkpoint transition, exception state, modal basis, gains, stability partition, intervention map, residuals, drift, scope, coupling, and gap all have explicit domain correspondences."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a coherent conditional lever: qualified persistent combinations guide evidence allocation, while sensitivity and traceability distinguish actionable modes from merely large ones."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components are translated, load-bearing mechanisms have counterfactual roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with their limits."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The packet supplies no observations establishing reproducible coupled propagation, an estimable transition operator, held-out benefit, or novelty relative to existing audit methods."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers compare coupled propagation and mode-guided allocation against coordinate-level baselines under held-out evaluation."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is retrospective, audit authority remains with the auditor, prohibited uses are explicit, sensitive-data and personnel risks are recognized, and rollback conditions preserve ordinary planning."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's transformation-based logic and carries its modal, residual, drift, coupling, and scope invariants into the audit setting."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The state, objectives, procedures, authority boundaries, traceability requirements, and professional-judgment limits are specific to financial close and auditing practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":2,"reason":"The conditional pathway is coherent, but its key assumptions about stationarity, operator identifiability, and reproducible propagation remain unobserved and vulnerable to human-governed regime changes."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every specified component has a concrete domain realization and an operational role in selection, interpretation, testing, monitoring, or governance."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts isolated errors, leakage, scaling and calendar artifacts, nonlinearity, degeneracy, drift, structured residuals, and baseline-detected misses."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It shifts attention from isolated threshold breaches to coupled propagation patterns while retaining source-unit traceability and ordinary audit judgment."},"practicality_testability":{"score":2,"reason":"The retrospective comparison is bounded and measurable, but the proposed history may be inadequate for estimating a high-dimensional transition operator, and no identifiability or regularization plan is supplied."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A retrospective worklist comparison offers useful information with limited operational exposure, although privacy, stigma, false reassurance, and displaced attention remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing multivariate audit analytics, process mining, and anomaly-detection approaches is unevidenced."}},"weighted_total":78.75,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["causal_plausibility","practicality_testability","novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The existence and stability of the proposed checkpoint transition are unsupported.","repair":"Obtain an adequately sized historical panel and preregister identifiability, regularization, conditioning, leakage, stationarity, gap, and held-out residual criteria before interpreting any modes.","evidence_boundary":"The packet labels the propagation structure as hypothetical and reports no fitted operator or validation result."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposed historical scope may be too sparse for the dimensionality of the account-entity-control state.","repair":"Demonstrate that independent transition observations support the effective model dimension, or reduce and preregister the state granularity before running the comparison.","evidence_boundary":"The packet names a small set of completed closes but gives no checkpoint count, effective sample size, state dimension, or estimation-error analysis."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The incremental benefit of modal allocation over strong predictive and professional-judgment baselines is unknown.","repair":"Run the preregistered held-out, equal-effort comparison and report detection, lead time, baseline-only findings, residual structure, and uncertainty without treating association as proof of misstatement.","evidence_boundary":"Only an expected benefit and falsifier are provided; no comparative outcome is available."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to established audit analytics is not established.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review covering multivariate audit risk scoring, close-process mining, temporal anomaly detection, and dynamic-factor or state-space approaches, then state the specific incremental mechanism.","evidence_boundary":"The classification explicitly records an unsearched prior-art status."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal-lever revision, or registered repair to evaluate; the remaining limitations are evidentiary rather than attributable improvement."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-faithful structural transfer with careful falsifiers and safeguards. Its decisive claims nevertheless depend on unobserved modal structure, uncertain high-dimensional estimability, untested comparative benefit, and unsearched prior art, so closed-book success cannot be awarded."}