{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__accounting_auditing","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"207d87deb9f6740169af56d308d81a353dddb1561ecf133c3d4a7d9d94bce914","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The audit-repository problem is independently specified through actors, observable states, consequences, a baseline, and a problem falsifier without relying on the source archetype for its existence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Recurring evidence deposits, stale active status, retention-removal tension, lifecycle states, dependency checks, exceptions, archival paths, and bounded cleanup correspond closely to the archetype while respecting audit-specific constraints."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Context-sensitive detection and explicit lifecycle states plausibly reduce stale evidence visibility, while retention authority, holds, and dependency gates control disposition; the claimed effects remain appropriately framed as pilot-testable hypotheses."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete domain realization, and selected mechanisms retain their distinctive functions. Rejected mechanisms are explicitly distinguished from the proposed intervention rather than being relabeled and reused."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"No external authority, prevalence estimate, or empirical effect is fabricated. Structural claims are marked as inference or hypothesis, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and empirical uncertainty is bounded."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether stale-evidence confusion and disposition delay are material, while the intervention falsifier separately tests comparative search, retrieval, review, dependency, hold, reconciliation, and recovery outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is allocated between engagement and records personnel; the first step is read-only and reversible; permanent deletion and protected-record removal are excluded; explicit halt and rollback conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full accumulation, aging, authority, dependency, disposition, recoverability, and revalidation structure with no material mismatch."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation reflects audit evidence status, finalized workpapers, review trails, rollforwards, retention authority, holds, investigations, and reconstruction duties rather than treating records as generic storage objects."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and identifies load-bearing controls, but the prevalence of stale retrieval and the magnitude of pilot effects remain empirically untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All listed components receive specific accounting-and-auditing realizations, including adapted aging, access, compaction, and staleness concepts."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest null, explains where the cache analogy breaks, identifies hidden-dependency and governance failure modes, and supplies separate falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Treating superseded audit evidence as lifecycle-governed layers unifies search authority, retention, archival economics, dependency safety, and recoverability in a useful operational frame."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded, read-only pilot has observable labels, search outcomes, retrieval errors, review burden, dependency findings, reconciliation checks, and restore results with rollback available."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot offers meaningful diagnostic value with limited initial exposure, although classification errors, metadata sensitivity, incomplete dependency visibility, and governance overhead remain consequential risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the composition is novel within audit-record lifecycle practice."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The materiality and prevalence of stale evidence retrieval are not established.","repair":"Use the bounded pilot to measure baseline stale-result exposure, mistaken reliance, review effort, and delayed disposition before considering broader deployment.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural plausibility and test design, not empirical prevalence or effect."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty is unsupported because relevant prior art has not been examined.","repair":"Compare the composition against audit-document management, records-retention, e-discovery hold, archival validation, and workpaper-versioning practices before making a novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation cannot determine novelty beyond the supplied packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor, changed problem identifier, changed causal-lever identifier, or registered repair 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 structurally complete, audit-faithful, reversible, and falsifiable lifecycle intervention. Its principal evidence gap concerns novelty, while causal effectiveness and problem prevalence appropriately remain pilot-testable hypotheses."}