{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__robotics_automation","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"098d286bb6ba804e4bf08ac34455a4a1cea7f2da8b6b2e9cee03f1613d24b429","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The robot-motion problem is independently specified through actors, observable states, consequences, objectives, a baseline, and a problem-specific falsifier rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The locally identified closed-loop transformation, coupled state directions, modal responses, selection rules, residual checks, drift monitoring, and interpretation bounds correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal links hazardous coupled dynamics to modal diagnosis, bounded controller sensitivity, increased damping, and guarded outcome validation. The lever is distinguishable from decomposition alone and has an explicit intervention falsifier."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every listed archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing and supporting mechanisms have coherent roles, rejected mechanisms are rejected for relevant reasons, and non-normality, coupling, residuals, and local validity are preserved."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness and recurrence are consistently bounded as hypotheses, prior art is explicitly unsearched, no unsupported result is presented as observed fact, and the required evidence is assigned to held-out and physical-response tests."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier can reject the coupled-mode diagnosis through ordinary fault evidence, while the intervention falsifier separately rejects the proposed damping lever through failed or harmful controller responses."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Deployment authority is reserved to designated control and safety owners, the initial work is bounded to replay, shadow evaluation, and guarded low-speed testing, and exclusions, halt conditions, and rollback are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal instantiates the transformation, modal basis and gains, action selection, intervention mapping, residual governance, drift monitoring, coupling limits, and local scope without collapsing the archetype into generic dimensionality reduction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The treatment of discrete-time stability, configuration dependence, controller switching, flexible dynamics, actuator limits, guarded-cell testing, and non-normal transient amplification is technically appropriate for robotics and automation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The damping pathway is coherent and falsifiable, but recurrence, identification quality, controller-to-mode leverage, and safety benefit remain empirically unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All required components are translated into robot-specific objects or governance rules, with appropriate adaptations for safety-weighted selection and controller perturbation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates single-component faults, nonlinear regime changes, transient amplification, degeneracy, omitted dynamics, cross-mode harm, and misuse of analytical authority, with corresponding checks or stops."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the control problem from reacting to individual-joint symptoms and aggregate error to identifying and damping coupled action-relevant directions while retaining residual visibility."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The staged replay, shadow, guarded-cell, held-out, and rollback workflow is executable, though quantitative acceptance budgets and identification procedures still require prespecification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains in early instability detection and targeted tuning are substantial, and controls limit exposure, but physical testing and controller modification retain material risk while benefits remain unmeasured."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Acceptance thresholds for conditioning, reconstruction, modal drift, actuator demand, and safety-relevant outcomes are not yet operationally fixed.","repair":"Prespecify thresholds from approved engineering limits and validation data before interpreting or advancing any candidate controller change.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies the gating variables and halt logic but no validated numerical budgets."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The candidate provides no evidence that the composition is novel relative to established modal control, system identification, or robot vibration practice.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any novelty or differentiation claim.","evidence_boundary":"The classification explicitly records prior art as unsearched and makes no novelty claim."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no revision from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for success. It provides a faithful, domain-specific modal-control translation with a plausible causal lever, independent falsifiers, strong residual and non-normality safeguards, and bounded authority. Remaining work concerns empirical calibration and prior-art evidence rather than structural repair."}