{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__architecture_urban_planning","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"5e6a4d112fef9e04a2ebdcd99ecb70c30e0bc40452db65e17b4d8034c5e9630f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The zoning-code accretion problem is independently recognizable in the target domain and is not defined merely by analogy to the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive regulatory instruments form identifiable temporal deposits, with stale authority signals, retention exceptions, dependencies, differentiated dispositions, and reconstructability needs corresponding closely to the source structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Provision identities, lifecycle states, retention rules, dependency gates, authorized disposition, and durable markers plausibly interrupt the pathway by which obsolete-looking provisions remain active and confusing."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All lifecycle components receive domain realizations, load-bearing mechanisms retain their distinctive functions, incompatible content-blind eviction is rejected, and legal status is not conflated with storage location or age."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate clearly bounds the proposal as an unsearched hypothesis, labels inferential claims, supplies no invented empirical support, and makes validation contingent on a shadow pilot."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes lifecycle accretion from policy conflict or staffing constraints, while the intervention falsifier separately tests performance and harms against ordinary review and consolidation."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Legal authority remains with the council or delegated body, counsel controls legal constraints, the initial pilot is nonbinding, prohibited actions are explicit, and halt conditions preserve operative law."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The mapping preserves temporal deposition, stale active layers, dependency-sensitive retirement, exceptions, differentiated disposition, bounded active presentation, and recoverable history."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal respects public procedure, vested and reliance interests, legal effect, codification practice, records duties, and the distinction between metadata and operative law."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed governance chain plausibly improves identification and controlled disposition, although its effect size and dependency coverage remain untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and function-preserving, with careful adaptation where digital deletion concepts cannot transfer literally."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses necessary historical layers, tacit dependencies, unofficial-code risk, biased staleness signals, archive accessibility, and irreversible legal consequences."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating code maintenance as continuous lifecycle governance adds provision-level states, exception revalidation, restoration checks, and recurring review beyond episodic recodification."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded shadow pilot, observable comparison outcomes, halt rules, and named actors make the proposal testable without changing law, though implementation burden is not yet measured."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot limits immediate legal harm and offers meaningful interpretability benefits, while political signaling, access inequity, and incomplete dependency discovery remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing zoning-code lifecycle, recodification, records-management, or legal-publication practices."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing municipal code-maintenance and legal-publication practices is unknown.","repair":"Conduct bounded prior-art research comparing the proposal with continuous codification, sunset review, zoning-code audits, records schedules, and historical-code publication systems.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched; no novelty conclusion is supported here."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal benefit and operational burden have not been demonstrated in practice.","repair":"Execute the authorized shadow pilot and compare controlling-provision identification, conflict detection, false-stale flags, missed dependencies, restoration performance, user confusion, and staff effort against baseline review.","evidence_boundary":"The causal chain is plausible and testable but remains hypothetical."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem identifier, 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 is a strong, domain-faithful transfer with complete component translation, credible causal leverage, distinct falsifiers, and unusually careful authority safeguards. Its principal limitation is absence of novelty evidence, which does not defeat the otherwise successful gate and score result."}