{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__religious_studies_theology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"4416182aeaaa717a82884c9e86d39f8e78dc0436b12c063ab07e88147b8fa077","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The coupled-change problem is independently recognizable in longitudinal religious research and remains meaningful without modal terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype’s transformation, state, modes, gains, selection, residual, drift, coupling, and scope structure with explicit domain translations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The analytic lever targets coupled temporal configurations and distinguishes transformation-based explanation from separate-variable analysis and variance-only compression."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All structural components are translated, load-bearing mechanisms have counterfactual necessity, rejected mechanisms are distinguished, and robustness mechanisms retain their original functions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical existence and stability are labeled as hypotheses, descriptive results are separated from causal and theological claims, and no unsupported empirical success is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the existence of a coupled-variable problem and the usefulness of the modal workflow against both the baseline and nearest rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to approved analysis, affected parties and prohibited uses are explicit, and stopping, suppression, and rollback conditions address identification and interpretive harms."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The domain realization closely reproduces invariant-mode decomposition as a bounded transformation-based workflow rather than borrowing spectral vocabulary decoratively."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal treats religious meanings as contested and historically situated, includes community governance, and prohibits essentialist, normative, and theological interpretations."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The epistemic pathway from coupled observations through temporal mapping and bounded modal explanation is plausible, but stationarity and interpretability remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component has an explicit realization, including residual visibility, gap criteria, coupling, local validity, and governance of interpretation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"Coding dependence, survey redesign, turnover, shocks, nonlinearity, subgroup omission, instability, rival methods, and analogy failure are directly confronted."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer materially shifts explanation from isolated religious variables to traceable configurations with persistence, amplification, coupling, and residual behavior."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded retrospective pilot, held-out comparison, bootstrap analysis, subgroup residual audit, and stopping rules are specified, though operational thresholds await preregistration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal offers meaningful explanatory value with strong safeguards, while residual risks of reidentification, category imposition, and stigmatizing interpretation remain consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports that prior art is unsearched and therefore supplies no evidence supporting a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to longitudinal latent-state, dynamic factor, and computational religious-change research is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review before making any novelty or differentiation claim.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural distinctness from its stated baseline and rival, but not distinctness from the broader literature."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Several decisive fidelity, gap, instability, and subgroup-harm thresholds are described procedurally but not yet operationalized.","repair":"Pre-register estimands, threshold rules, uncertainty procedures, and subgroup suppression criteria for the authorized pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a test architecture, not evidence that any dataset will satisfy its assumptions or thresholds."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; neither identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete and domain-sensitive transfer with distinct falsifiers, bounded claims, and unusually strong authority safeguards. Its principal unresolved issue is absent prior-art evidence, while empirical validity appropriately remains assigned to the proposed pilot."}