{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__futurism_foresight","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"8526da91884f2352cddca868a56a9a88ef56b1a3974c039e259959d3d2e28919","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The early-warning problem is independently recognizable: separate driver thresholds can miss consequential interaction patterns regardless of whether modal analysis is used."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal supplies an explicit local transformation, state vector, coupled directions, scalar responses, selection rules, residual checks, drift monitoring, and bounded interpretation closely corresponding to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever connects coupled-driver propagation patterns to earlier bundle escalation and reversible preparedness testing, while outcome sensitivity distinguishes mathematical prominence from decision leverage."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, supporting mechanisms are bounded, and unsuitable alternatives are rejected for relevant reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness and operator validity are presented as hypotheses rather than established facts; the proposal explicitly marks prior art as unsearched and requires held-out validation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled patterns add warning information, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the modal workflow outperforms interaction-aware scenarios and satisfies stability gates."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with accountable governance and strategy owners, the initial test is shadow-mode and reversible, affected parties and prohibited uses are named, and halt conditions cover technical failure and stakeholder harm."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transformation-to-modes-to-gains-to-action structure is complete, traceable, and protected by residual, gap, coupling, and drift checks."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer respects plural futures, reflexivity, constructed driver categories, expert elicitation limits, scenario practice, and the non-predictive character of foresight."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The warning mechanism is coherent if a temporally useful cross-impact operator exists, but that operator and its incremental predictive value remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named components receive specific foresight-domain realizations with direct or adapted status and clear operational meaning."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts instability, degeneracy, non-normality, discontinuity, reification, marginalization, gaming, and false precision with tests or stopping rules."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts attention from conspicuous individual trends to interacting propagation patterns while preserving residual and minority-scenario visibility."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded archived-cycle shadow backtest with baseline, rival, outcomes, and rollback is feasible, though calibration and threshold-setting procedures still require preregistration detail."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Earlier interaction-aware warning could be valuable and the pilot contains strong safeguards, but subjective matrices and downstream reification retain material risk."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The construction and calibration of the cross-impact update operator are not yet sufficiently specified to distinguish a temporal operator from a static elicitation artifact.","repair":"Before empirical execution, preregister how judgments and archived transitions produce the update matrix, how uncertainty is propagated, and which diagnostics invalidate operator interpretation.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a coherent test design but supplies no observed stability or held-out performance."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing spectral, cross-impact, and dynamic foresight methods is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a targeted prior-art review before making originality claims or fixing the final intervention label.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate itself identifies prior-art status as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is an unusually complete and well-bounded domain transfer. Its scientific value depends on validating that the elicited cross-impact matrix behaves as a locally useful temporal operator, but that uncertainty is honestly represented and made falsifiable rather than concealed."}