{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__security_intelligence","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"9883dcfdd7a2f5fe1977c9b6b20303af64b6d4985b590d34e49f589b35533cd9","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently stated as late warning caused by separately monitored indicators missing persistent joint escalation patterns; it does not depend on naming the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The fitted transition operator, indicator state, invariant directions, modal responses, selection rule, residual checks, drift monitoring, scope contract, coupling register, validity window, and gap threshold form a traceable structural correspondence."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention targets the proposed failure mechanism by detecting reproducible growing combinations, testing their warning leverage, and routing them into reversible validation and review. The advantage over simpler rivals remains an explicit empirical hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, load-bearing mechanisms have clear counterfactual roles, rejected mechanisms are justified, and the non-normality diagnostic is kept distinct from invariant-mode interpretation."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, uncertainty and collection artifacts are acknowledged, empirical novelty is not asserted, and no citations, search claims, or invented validation results appear."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether joint lagged combinations add reproducible warning value, while the intervention falsifier separately compares frozen modal triage with both ordinary practice and a multivariate rival under collection controls."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is retrospective and access-controlled, human judgment and joint governance authority are preserved, coercive and attribution uses are excluded, and explicit halt, quarantine, and rollback conditions are provided."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full operator-to-mode-to-gain-to-intervention structure and its residual, drift, coupling, and scope constraints."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The realization accounts for source qualification, missingness, collection intensity, deception, adaptive opponents, affected populations, analyst workflow, and intelligence authority boundaries."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from coupled temporal structure to earlier analytic triage is coherent, but observational transition modes may reflect collection policy, exogenous decisions, or deception rather than durable escalation dynamics."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component is translated into a concrete security-intelligence object or governance rule without collapsing modes into actors, intent, or causation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonstationarity, non-normality, near-degeneracy, adaptive manipulation, biased observation, structured residuals, rival methods, and analyst anchoring."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts warning from isolated indicator thresholds toward auditable joint directions of modeled persistence and growth, yielding a materially different monitoring and triage frame."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A retrospective frozen-threshold comparison is feasible and falsifiable, though reliable estimation may require substantial historical depth, stable definitions, and enough escalation events for calibration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot could improve lead time without expanding collection, while false coherence and concentrated scrutiny remain consequential risks requiring the proposed safeguards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched and no comparative novelty evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposed advantage over multivariate warning models is not yet empirically established.","repair":"Execute the pre-registered retrospective comparison and report calibration, lead-time utility, residual structure, subgroup concentration, and sensitivity to collection-intensity controls.","evidence_boundary":"Until that test is completed, modal warning leverage is a testable hypothesis rather than demonstrated performance."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No evidence supports a novelty claim for the mechanism composition in intelligence warning.","repair":"Conduct scoped prior-art review across strategic-warning models, dynamic factor methods, regime-sensitive forecasting, and spectral monitoring before making originality claims.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book record supports structural quality and testability, not novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs or revisions to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a strong, domain-bounded modal warning design with unusually complete component coverage, distinct falsifiers, and conservative authority controls. Its principal unresolved questions are empirical advantage over simpler rivals and prior-art novelty, both of which are explicitly bounded rather than guessed."}