{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__aviation_aeronautics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"473e08a66c2a89e9705872ea13e6950e2f154ad1ad791ddf19706516d28ae2c1","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The aviation problem is independently meaningful: coupled aeroelastic instability can evade channel-level monitoring regardless of the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the transformation, coupled state, invariant directions, modal response, intervention mapping, residual visibility, drift monitoring, and bounded interpretation structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Estimating and validating coupled dynamical modes can expose weak damping and direct envelope, configuration, or control-law decisions toward the relevant instability direction."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every named component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, and unsuitable variance, centrality, and dominant-only mechanisms are rejected for domain-relevant reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, baseline performance, and comparative benefit are explicitly bounded as hypotheses; no citations, measurements, or prior-art conclusions are invented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a hidden coupled-monitoring deficit exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the modal pipeline improves prediction, warning, or calibration."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Initial use is limited to shadow analysis, release authority remains with designated aviation organizations, excluded actions are explicit, and conservative halt and rollback conditions are defined."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates the archetype's full modal decision structure rather than borrowing spectral terminology superficially."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"State variables, damping, flutter risk, envelope increments, control-law configuration, test authority, and aeroelastic validation are coherently aviation-specific."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from coupled identification through validated stability margin to bounded release decisions is plausible, though comparative benefit remains untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All components receive operational domain translations, including residual, coupling, local-validity, spectral-separation, and governance elements."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonlinearity, non-normality, unobserved modes, mode veering, small spectral gaps, structured residuals, and automation bias."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It materially shifts the decision frame from isolated channel excursions to coupled instability directions with explicit validity gates."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The archived-data shadow comparison is safe and measurable, but concrete datasets, estimators, and threshold values still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The advisory shadow phase limits immediate exposure while targeting a severe failure mode, although false reassurance and false alarms remain consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no defensible novelty claim is available closed-book."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Comparative advantage over established flutter-clearance and system-identification practice is still hypothetical.","repair":"During deep research, pre-register the baseline implementation and evaluate held-out prediction, warning lead time, false alarms, and release-decision calibration on representative archived cases.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a testable comparison design but no comparative results."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty is unsupported because relevant prior art has not been searched.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review covering operational modal analysis, flutter monitoring, aeroelastic system identification, and residual-gated envelope expansion before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"Structural originality can be assessed internally, but historical novelty cannot be inferred from this packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, aviation-faithful modal decomposition design with explicit causal roles, empirical falsifiers, residual and drift safeguards, and appropriately retained human authority. Comparative efficacy and novelty remain research questions rather than fabricated conclusions."}