{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__military_strategic_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2f506369304f7e3c5df8afe5e1a018352ee06f453ad3821f6f60559b38fa062b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently specified as missed coupled escalation or mission-failure patterns in strategic assessment, with concrete actors, observations, consequences, and an ordinary-dashboard baseline."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's transformation, invariant-direction, modal-gain, intervention-map, residual, drift, and bounded-interpretation structure rather than merely borrowing spectral vocabulary."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever connects validated persistent or growing modes to earlier warning and to sensitivity-ranked, authorized reversible controls; simulated effects are correctly bounded and subjected to comparative falsification."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, and rejected mechanisms are distinguished from selected causal, operational, testing, and safety functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, empirical maturity and prior-art status are disclosed, residual and conditioning uncertainty remains visible, and no unsupported operational effectiveness claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled hidden modes add predictive value, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether modal prioritization improves warning or simulated control outcomes against both comparators."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is confined to archived or synthetic exercise data, authority remains in the lawful civilian-military chain, dangerous automated and live actions are excluded, and explicit halt, rollback, audit, and review conditions are provided."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates invariant-mode decomposition as a governed decision system, including explicit scope, modal responses, residual visibility, drift monitoring, coupling, and retirement rules."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The military-strategic translation is specific and authority-aware, while acknowledging reflexivity, deception, sparse observations, regime shifts, and the limited correspondence between strategic interaction and a fixed operator."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The warning pathway is coherent and the control pathway is cautiously limited to bounded simulation, but real intervention effects remain dependent on identification quality and regime stability."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The complete component set is translated into operational domain artifacts and decision rules without collapsing distinct components into generic analytics."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses adaptive opponents, deceptive data, nonlinearity, exercise artifacts, non-normality, small gaps, consequential residuals, and model-invalidating interventions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts assessment from isolated indicators and conspicuous symptoms to coupled directions, hidden amplification, modal leverage, and explicit model-validity governance."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A preregistered archived or synthetic exercise study with held-out comparisons is feasible, though adequate sequential data and reproducible state construction may be difficult to obtain."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible analytic trial offers meaningful warning value with strong safeguards, while escalation risk and false confidence remain material if outputs escape the bounded review process."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The composition is plausibly distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing military forecasting, dynamic-factor, state-space, or spectral-warning work."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty is unevidenced despite a well-differentiated structural proposal.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison against military dynamic-factor, state-space, system-identification, escalation-warning, and spectral network approaches, identifying which claimed combination is absent or materially different.","evidence_boundary":"Until that comparison is completed, novelty should remain an unverified hypothesis and should not be used to justify adoption."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The intervention pathway depends on simulated control effects that may not be causally identified from observational transitions.","repair":"Predefine which control effects come from randomized exercise variation, credible quasi-experimental variation, or explicit scenario assumptions, and report warning validity separately from intervention validity.","evidence_boundary":"Passing predictive and reconstruction checks supports bounded warning use but does not establish real-world control effectiveness."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repair registry, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-aware, falsifiable, and safety-bounded translation. Its main unresolved questions concern empirical identifiability and novelty, neither of which defeats the proposed archived or synthetic evaluation."}