{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__archaeology_paleontology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"5423b41a0105c10c1055c532f096e1374a64445f14813b4cf7365027c931027c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The repository backlog is independently specified through observable collection conditions, affected objectives, a domain baseline, and an audit-based problem falsifier; it does not depend solely on the source analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Sequentially accessioned lots and their associated records form identifiable temporal deposits, while explicit lifecycle states, exception handling, reversible demotion, and accountable disposition preserve the archetype's core structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory repair, obligation-gated review, reversible tiering, and lossless consolidation plausibly act on retrieval and active-capacity burdens, while exceptional deaccession remains downstream of dependency and authority checks."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, unsuitable age-based and access-based mechanisms are rejected, and the selected mechanisms retain differentiated causal, operational, and safety roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Outcome claims are bounded as hypotheses, interpretive mappings are labeled, prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, and the proposal relies on a bounded pilot rather than presenting unsupported effectiveness as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed repository backlog exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the governed lifecycle changes improve named outcomes without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Disposal authority remains with an authorized collections body under legal, ethical, permit, agreement, and consultation constraints; sensitive categories and irreversible pilot actions are excluded, with explicit halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves accumulation, changing usefulness, differentiated lifecycle states, dependency-sensitive retirement, exception governance, recoverability, and surviving accountability without treating mere age as grounds for destruction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation recognizes uniqueness, provenance, contextual relationships, permits, repatriation, community interests, type and sensitive material, access equity, condition risk, and the limits of digital surrogates."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible tiering and consolidation can plausibly reduce active-store pressure and improve retrieval, but the magnitude depends on collection composition, facility constraints, staff effort, and whether deep-reserve access remains usable."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and functionally differentiated, including careful adaptations for orphan detection, expiration, rollback, restoration, stale context, supersession, and preservation overrides."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The submission directly confronts future research value, nonreplaceability, incomplete documentation, contested heritage values, access inequity, consolidation loss, and the possibility that safety gates prevent meaningful disposition."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The lifecycle frame usefully separates active accessibility from permanent retention and makes review, demotion, restoration, and accountability explicit, though much of the intervention resembles mature collections-management practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded collection, reversible actions, observable metrics, movement logs, retrieval drills, falsifiers, and halt conditions support testing, but sampling, comparator construction, and institutional limits remain unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The authorized pilot is deliberately reversible and excludes high-consequence material, creating favorable learning value, while physical movement, access delays, inequitable effects, and hidden dependencies remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to repository lifecycle, tiered storage, deaccession, or collections-review practice."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Novelty relative to established archaeological repository lifecycle and deaccession practice is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison and identify which combination, decision rule, or measurable causal claim is absent from established practice.","evidence_boundary":"Until that comparison is completed, novelty must remain uncredited even though structural and domain quality can be judged from the packet."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot names outcomes and halt conditions but does not operationalize sampling, baseline comparison, or institutional acceptance limits.","repair":"Pre-register lot-selection strata, baseline measurement windows, retrieval tests, objection handling, and institution-approved stopping limits before movement begins.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports testability in principle but not a reproducible effectiveness estimate."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair baseline; the problem and causal-lever identifiers are explicitly marked unchanged."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, safety-bounded structural translation that preserves archaeological and paleontological uniqueness rather than importing automatic expiry. Its main unresolved issue is evidentiary: novelty is unestablished, and pilot operations need preregistered comparison and acceptance rules before effectiveness claims can mature."}