{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__linguistics_semiotics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"bdf62bad281198c66101d8f8ee1b84f3072fe923049ffc921c0557d1abe52d34","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The emergency-message meaning-preservation problem exists independently of modal analysis and is stated in terms of recipient harm, workflow, and observable semantic-pragmatic drift."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps bounded handoff transformations, coupled state features, recurrent directions, modal gains, residuals, and drift governance to domain-specific observables while explicitly treating local repeatability as a hypothesis."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The causal lever is consequential coupled drift rather than modal description alone; sensitivity tests connect candidate constraints to recipient interpretation, and held-out comparisons test whether intervention improves the objective."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a translated role, load-bearing mechanisms have counterfactual necessity, and rejected or supporting mechanisms are distinguished without conflating covariance, singular directions, and invariant dynamics."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical existence, stability, causality, and benefit are bounded as hypotheses or inferences; prior art is explicitly unsearched and no external authority is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate falsifiers address whether coupled recurrent drift exists and whether modal-assisted review outperforms both ordinary review and the direct supervised rival, including subgroup degradation."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized step is retrospective and non-deploying, affected parties and decision authority are identified, live-message experimentation is excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions preserve human review."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate instantiates the full transformation-to-modes-to-intervention structure, including approximation limits, residual visibility, conditioning, coupling, gap, and drift controls."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The state representation captures semantic and pragmatic distinctions central to emergency communication, and interpretation authority is shared with language-community reviewers rather than inferred from text alone."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from repeated coupled drift through behavioral validation to targeted review is coherent and experimentally discriminable, though the recurrent local dynamics and suppression effect remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All specified components receive operational domain realizations, and their relationships remain faithful to the archetype rather than serving as decorative terminology."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts contextual nonlinearity, operator instability, annotation reification, non-normality, near-degeneracy, rival prediction, subgroup harm, and scope dependence."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The modal framing shifts review from isolated lexical discrepancies toward persistent coupled changes with measurable amplification, consequence, residuals, and validity boundaries."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded retrospective comparison with held-out chains and comprehension outcomes is executable, but adjudication, repeated-chain construction, and stable estimation may require substantial data and reviewer effort."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The non-deploying pilot offers meaningful diagnostic upside while exclusions, subgroup checks, suspension gates, and rollback sharply limit operational and ethical exposure."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate declares prior art unsearched and supplies no closed-book evidence establishing novelty relative to existing multilingual quality-control or semantic-drift methods."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The existence and stability of action-relevant drift modes remain unverified and may collapse under translator, community, or batch heterogeneity.","repair":"Execute the preregistered resampling and held-out pilot, reporting subspace stability, conditioning, residual structure, recipient effects, and comparisons with both specified rivals.","evidence_boundary":"Until those results exist, modes support a research hypothesis and workflow experiment, not a linguistic fact or deployment claim."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty evidence distinguishes the proposal from existing multilingual message-quality, semantic-drift, or repeated-translation research.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review before asserting novelty or allocating resources on that basis.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can judge structural distinctiveness but cannot establish historical or empirical novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears the reject-first evaluation through an unusually complete, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safety-bounded modal adaptation. Its main unresolved boundary is empirical: recurrent linguistic drift modes, behavioral leverage, and novelty have not yet been demonstrated."}