{"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 proposed close-exception propagation problem is independently recognizable in accounting and auditing, with defined actors, observable states, consequences, and an existing coordinate-level baseline."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The transition, state, modes, gains, selection rule, stability partition, intervention map, residuals, drift, coupling, scope, and gap components have traceable domain realizations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal links persistent coupled exception patterns to a concrete reallocation of audit testing and compares that intervention against ordinary planning at equal effort, while retaining an explicit null."},"G4":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"The modal workflow is internally coherent, but the packet does not establish that the available checkpoint observations can identify a high-dimensional square transition operator or a stable action-relevant subspace."},"G5":{"status":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","reason":"Empirical prevalence, operator recoverability, intervention benefit, and prior-art status are explicitly unsupported; the candidate labels these claims as hypotheses rather than presenting invented confirmation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled structure adds beyond coordinate baselines, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether mode-guided allocation improves held-out audit outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The retrospective scope, audit-authority boundary, excluded actions, data controls, halt conditions, and rollback to ordinary planning appropriately constrain the pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's transformation-based logic and translates every action-relevant modal safeguard."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Ledger lineage, materiality-sensitive testing, professional judgment, mandated procedures, and audit authority are treated credibly, though feasibility in real close data remains unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":2,"reason":"Mode-guided allocation could expose jointly propagating exceptions, but operator identifiability and the link from local modal sensitivity to consequential audit detection are not yet established."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named components receive distinct accounting realizations, including residual, coupling, drift, linearization, and spectral-separation controls."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses leakage, nonlinearity, one-off events, near-degeneracy, residual omission, baseline misses, and causal overinterpretation, but cannot resolve them without data."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It meaningfully shifts attention from isolated exception magnitudes to coupled propagation patterns while preserving source-level traceability."},"practicality_testability":{"score":2,"reason":"The retrospective comparison and stopping rules are testable, but state dimensionality, observation count, pooling assumptions, regularization, and recovery diagnostics are unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible retrospective worklist comparison offers useful learning with bounded operational risk, although confidentiality, stigma, and false reassurance require continued controls."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence-based novelty claim can be credited closed-book."}},"weighted_total":72.5,"disposition":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["causal_plausibility","practicality_testability","novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposal assumes that limited close history can support an identifiable transition operator over a potentially large account-entity-control state space.","repair":"Specify the effective sample construction, dimensionality reduction or regularization, pooling assumptions, rank requirements, leakage controls, conditioning diagnostics, and subspace-recovery test before permitting modal interpretation.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies neither dimensions nor observation counts sufficient to establish recoverability."},{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Local modal sensitivity is not yet shown to predict which reallocated audit procedures will detect consequential items.","repair":"Preregister the procedure-assignment rule and estimate its incremental held-out effect against both ordinary planning and the nearest multivariate rival at equal reviewer effort.","evidence_boundary":"The causal chain is plausible and falsifiable, but no intervention result is supplied."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The transfer's novelty and relationship to existing audit analytics are unknown.","repair":"Review relevant close-monitoring, multivariate anomaly-detection, process-mining, and dynamic-risk-allocation work before claiming novelty or distinct practical value.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly records prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[{"repair_id":"repair_operator_identifiability","target":"checkpoint transition operator identifiability","operation_code":"SPECIFY_TEST","affected_identifiers":["eigendecomposition_workflow","state_vector_definition","transformation_scope"],"acceptance_test":"Specify effective observations, state dimension, pooling and regularization assumptions, leakage controls, rank and conditioning thresholds, and a held-out subspace-recovery test; accept modal use only when the action-relevant subspace is recovered stably across resamples and the preregistered thresholds pass.","materially_distinct":true,"supersedes":null,"repair_fingerprint":"5fa030fea05422e34db2036f6c5bb8ce46cfdfd7be021bc7bbec82eca20be0e0"}],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"RESEARCH_NEEDED","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, safety-bounded structural transfer with clear falsifiers, but operator recoverability, incremental audit benefit, and novelty remain unsupported by the closed-book packet."}