{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__aviation_aeronautics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3aea398f1596a8bf2ae4f218d90a7a64b2903139c7474bec51f125b306a0cd4d","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The wrong-version retrieval and reconstruction problem is independently recognizable in aviation document control without relying on the archetype analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive document revisions, stale active copies, retention tension, and lifecycle governance correspond directly to accumulated layers and managed disposition."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, explicit authority states, search demotion, dependency gates, and successor markers plausibly interrupt retrieval of superseded guidance while preserving reconstruction."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-translated, while mechanism selections have distinct roles, explicit adaptations, and meaningful counterfactual-removal tests."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effects, and prior art are explicitly bounded as unsearched hypotheses; the candidate does not fabricate aviation findings or external authority."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately states observable problem and intervention falsifiers, a baseline, a nearest rival, failure conditions, and measurable adverse outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step is read-only and shadow-mode, production changes and automatic disposition are excluded, decision authority and holds are assigned, and halt conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal accumulation, stale-authority hazard, retention tension, differentiated disposition, dependency protection, and reconstructability requirements."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"Actors, operational artifacts, offline copies, applicability, dispatch use, investigations, and document authority are credibly aviation-specific, though artifact-class distinctions and local governance details remain to be established."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed controls act directly on version ambiguity and active discoverability, with safeguards for dependencies and reconstruction; effectiveness still depends on trustworthy metadata and identity resolution."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed component receives a concrete aviation-document realization, including often-missed restore, hold, tombstone, orphan, compaction, and stale-context functions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies strong counterevidence, analogy limits, metadata and dependency failure modes, separate falsifiers, rival practice, and credible harms."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating document revisions as governed lifecycle states adds retention, archival, restoration, and dependency logic beyond a latest-version portal, although parts overlap established document-control practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded shadow retrieval test is feasible and names observable outcomes, halt conditions, and rollback, but sampling, tolerances, and evaluation procedures require pre-registration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The read-only pilot offers meaningful safety-learning value with limited immediate exposure, while later deployment would retain serious metadata, synchronization, and disposition risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Originality cannot be established because prior-art status is explicitly unsearched and no comparative evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Originality relative to aviation document-control and electronic-flight-bag lifecycle practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review comparing the proposed lifecycle composition with existing document-authority, synchronization, archival, and investigation-reconstruction controls.","evidence_boundary":"No novelty or practice-gap conclusion is justified from the closed-book packet."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The shadow test names outcomes but leaves sampling, tolerances, and metadata-reliability criteria unspecified.","repair":"Pre-register the document family, retrieval tasks, device strata, adjudication method, tolerances, and metadata-trust checks before execution.","evidence_boundary":"Causal effectiveness remains hypothetical until the bounded comparison is run."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repair history against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally strong, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safety-bounded lifecycle transfer suitable for empirical validation; originality remains unestablished."}