{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__art_aesthetics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"04c3cdd8d26c5ecf71d8b4d29774f8bd9c7681e3fbdb96d8485152a28fcc1c9b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an art-domain problem independently: conflicting artwork states and records create authority ambiguity, installation risk, workload, and reconstruction risk."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Artwork builds, instructions, treatments, and interpretive records form identifiable temporal deposits, and the proposal preserves the archetype's inventory, retention, expiry, exception, archival, dependency, and audit structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention directly changes visibility and authority of obsolete layers through identity resolution, supersession marking, governed tiering, dependency checks, and reversible disposition, with a credible path to fewer selection errors and a bounded active set."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain-specific translations, selected mechanisms retain their defining functions, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons specific to artistic value and heterogeneous states."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and prevalence claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and the proposal does not manufacture effectiveness or novelty evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, a conventional-documentation comparator, observable task outcomes, restoration checks, and explicit failure conditions."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Destruction remains under designated human authority, relevant artist and estate interests are recognized, the initial pilot is reversible and simulation-based, prohibited actions are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions protect disputed or unreconstructable states."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer preserves accumulated temporal layers, changing usefulness and authority, differentiated retention, reversible disposition, dependency protection, and surviving auditability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in artwork identity, artist intent, plural authentic states, conservation, installation practice, provenance, rights, technological obsolescence, and the aesthetic significance of ambiguity."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanisms plausibly reduce authority-selection ambiguity while preserving reconstruction, although the simulation pilot establishes task effects more directly than long-run active-set boundedness."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed component is translated coherently, with careful adaptations preventing age or access from being mistaken for artistic worth."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts plural authority, meaningful ambiguity, false precision, stale governance labels, incomplete dependencies, format decay, and restoration failure with relevant safeguards and falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes version confusion and preservation burden as lifecycle governance of artwork states, yielding differentiated choices beyond keeping everything equally active or deleting it."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded reversible pilot, blinded installation tasks, comparator, overlay labels, and restore drills are executable, but tolerances and measurement procedures still require operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible first step offers useful evidence with limited immediate harm, while canonicalization, rights exposure, and misleading labels remain material residual risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence supports an originality claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal does not establish whether this lifecycle composition is novel relative to existing time-based media conservation, variable-media documentation, digital preservation, and collections-management practice.","repair":"Conduct bounded prior-art research and distinguish any claimed contribution from established conservation and digital-asset lifecycle workflows.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can establish structural coherence but cannot establish originality."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot names outcome categories but leaves task scoring, error taxonomy, decision latency measurement, and acceptable false-flag and restore-failure tolerances underspecified.","repair":"Pre-register the blinded task protocol, comparator conditions, outcome definitions, tolerance thresholds, and halt criteria before execution.","evidence_boundary":"The embedded packet supports testability in principle, not validated measurement reliability or effect size."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-faithful transfer that preserves the lifecycle archetype while respecting plural artwork authority and cultural value. Its reversible pilot and safeguards support progression; prior-art evidence and measurement detail remain the main research needs."}