{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__astronomy_astrophysics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"032888c0c2720f026ac522835f20b21fe5a76368d3bdb93e76cd2a3b2ba50599","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies an independently intelligible astronomy archive problem involving supersession, costly active retention, misleading discovery, and reproducibility-sensitive deletion."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Versioned observations, calibrations, intermediates, simulations, and releases correspond directly to accumulated temporal layers, with explicit lifecycle states and preservation exceptions."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed sequence plausibly connects inventory, authority labeling, dependency gating, tier migration, reversible quarantine, restoration testing, and revalidation to reduced active burden and safer interpretation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain translations, and the selected mechanisms retain their distinctive functions while age-only scoring and content-blind rotation are appropriately rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, performance, and preservation claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences; prior-art and evidence maturity are disclosed without invented validation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a material lifecycle gap exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests footprint, discovery, restoration, provenance, latency, and disposition outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to a multidisciplinary archive governance group, the initial action is reversible and metadata-led, permanent deletion is excluded, and explicit halt conditions protect scientific and proprietary interests."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The domain problem preserves the archetype's accumulated layers, changing validity, bounded-resource pressure, differentiated disposition, dependency risk, exceptions, and auditability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects the enduring and sometimes increasing value of old astronomical observations and distinguishes canonical measurements from reproducible intermediates and cache copies."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Tiering, supersession labeling, dependency checks, quarantine, and restore drills form a coherent causal system, though their net effects remain empirically untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific to scientific data products, and consistent with the mechanism dispositions and causal chain."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts age-value inversion, incomplete dependency visibility, restoration failure, latency, lossy compaction, disputed preservation value, and sensitive metadata retention."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes archive growth from a storage-only concern into governed authority, provenance, recoverability, and lifecycle-state management."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded reversible pilot, baseline, outcome categories, restore drills, halt conditions, and rollback path are specified, although operational thresholds are not yet calibrated."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The design offers plausible storage and interpretability benefits while containing irreversible risk through holds, dependency blocks, quarantine, tombstones, and restoration checks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports novelty beyond the internal composition and domain adaptation."}},"weighted_total":85.0,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Operational thresholds for tier migration, acceptable retrieval delay, quarantine duration, restore fidelity, and disputed-disposition handling are not calibrated.","repair":"Use the authorized pilot to establish class-specific thresholds and predeclare decision criteria before any expanded rollout.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural testability but contains no measured workload, cost, demand, or restoration distributions."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and overlap with existing observatory archive practices are unknown.","repair":"Conduct scoped prior-art and practice research covering scientific archive retention, provenance preservation, storage tiering, supersession labeling, and reproducibility policies.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly records prior art as unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred from the closed-book packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair to compare; remaining uncertainty is evidentiary rather than an attributable revision effect."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates through an unusually complete structural translation, domain-aware limits on age-based disposal, a coherent reversible lifecycle chain, distinct falsifiers, and strong authority controls. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain open research questions but are honestly bounded and do not undermine the proposed pilot."}