{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__physics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"23d6bb41e60a7c26f9fccb441587fd0eb210f188dc37212e9710eb42f78f1eca","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The thermoacoustic hazard, affected objective, actors, consequences, and conventional baseline are intelligible independently of the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The local coupled-state operator, modal basis and gains, stability partition, intervention map, residual checks, drift monitoring, and validity contract closely correspond to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal links bounded actuator settings to modal growth through measured sensitivity, then tests whether changed growth alters oscillation onset relative to sham intervention."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every named component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with their limitations."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Unverified physical relations are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is declared unsearched, and no empirical result or authority is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers distinguish failure to identify a reproducible mode from failure of targeted damping despite a valid modal model."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Facility authority, bounded first steps, preserved interlocks, prohibited deployment, halt conditions, and rollback to existing control are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's transformation, invariant-direction, scalar-response, intervention, residual, drift, and scope structure without relying on superficial terminology."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The state variables, thermoacoustic operating regime, stability interpretation, non-normality concern, actuator choices, instrumentation limits, and facility controls are coherent with laboratory combustion physics."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Targeted damping has a clear perturbation-to-growth-to-onset chain and a sham-controlled test, though its validity depends on obtaining a reproducible local operator and safe actuator leverage."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All archetype components are translated into concrete combustor measurements, thresholds, artifacts, monitoring rules, or operating bounds."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonlinear switching, non-normal amplification, ill-conditioning, unobserved modes, near-degeneracy, structured residuals, regime drift, and extrapolation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts detection and control from isolated sensor peaks to coupled dynamical directions, exposing instability leverage that the baseline and nearest rival can miss."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"Archived data, an instrumented bench run, preregistered gates, bounded pulses, a sham comparison, measurable growth, and onset outcomes make the conjecture testable, subject to adequate sensing and identification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Earlier warning and more selective control could protect equipment and experiments, while the staged authorization, trip limits, revocation rules, and rollback materially bound the remaining combustor risk."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The record explicitly reports prior art as unsearched and supplies no comparative novelty evidence."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal's novelty relative to established thermoacoustic modal identification and active-control work is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art comparison focused on local operator identification, mode-targeted actuation, non-normality safeguards, and validity-gated control, then state the genuinely differentiating claim.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet declares prior art unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is warranted here."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original record with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a coherent, falsifiable, bounded physics application. Its principal unresolved weakness is absent novelty evidence, which does not undermine the structural and causal test design."}