{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__tech_ethics_ai_governance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"deced7050ae540b48b819b1e41e06a2dd4388b7da5716cfdb9a6a676e63b7e52","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The missed-risk problem is independently specified through actors, observable joint trajectories, consequences, a baseline, and a problem falsifier; it remains meaningful without modal terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's coupled transformation, approximately invariant directions, modal response, action mapping, residual checks, drift monitoring, and bounded interpretation."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed leverage runs from coordinated early-warning detection through authorized investigation and reversible system-level controls. Intervention effects remain explicitly hypothetical and have a distinct falsifier."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, and the load-bearing mechanisms form a coherent decomposition, stability, sensitivity, fidelity, interpretation, and monitoring chain. Rejected mechanisms are distinguished from the target task."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and causal claims are labeled as inference or hypothesis, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported efficacy or novelty claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The record separately falsifies the existence of missed coupled deterioration and the effectiveness of controls intended to change an identified risky mode."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is retrospective and non-production, authority is assigned to accountable and independent bodies with representation, prohibited uses are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions are operationally defined."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The coupled-state problem and modal intervention architecture correspond closely, including local-validity limits, residual visibility, spectral separation, and retirement rules."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation addresses affected people, organizational authority, socially constructed indicators, subgroup harms, strategic reporting, lock-in, and the danger of laundering latent patterns into governance authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Earlier detection can plausibly trigger investigation and reversible controls, but observational transition modes and simulated sensitivity do not themselves identify causal intervention effects; the proposal correctly treats that link as a testable hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into auditable governance objects, thresholds, checks, action maps, and scope restrictions without collapsing distinct modal functions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates instability, non-normality, near-degeneracy, confounding, subgroup residuals, Goodhart effects, policy changes, weak stationarity, and competitive baselines."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts oversight from isolated threshold breaches to coordinated subthreshold trajectories while preserving traceability and refusing individual-level interpretation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded shadow evaluation with held-out comparisons and explicit halt criteria is feasible in principle, although adequate comparable review periods and a stable local regime may be difficult to obtain."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The retrospective first step and reversible governance response limit immediate harm, while residual risks remain from false alerts, technical-authority effects, workload, and biased indicator construction."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty judgment."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The intervention map may be mistaken for causal identification even though it is derived from observational or simulated dynamics.","repair":"During deep research, require control-effect validation using an independently justified design and preserve the early-warning-only role until that validation succeeds.","evidence_boundary":"The current packet supports a falsifiable causal hypothesis and safe shadow testing, not an established causal effect."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The candidate provides no evidence about prior art or novelty.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The disclosed prior-art status is unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or recorded repair history; neither identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, falsifiable, and safely bounded transfer. Its principal uncertainty is empirical: whether a stable local operator exists and whether mode-informed controls add held-out value without being mistaken for causal facts."}