{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__behavioral_economics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3ee5b2692e2dc909d017e98ea9c972e7fed807c627ef051173cce20e9289b42f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The accumulation of obsolete, conflicting, or unowned behavioral interventions is a recognizable domain problem independent of the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves sequential deposition, changing validity, explicit lifecycle states, differentiated disposition, dependency checks, exceptions, recoverability, and bounded active accumulation."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, mandatory review, and reversible retirement directly alter the default persistence that keeps stale interventions behaviorally active; the welfare effect is appropriately treated as a testable hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every source component receives a coherent domain realization, and selected mechanisms retain their distinct functions without making age or a composite score an automatic deletion authority."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical benefit and transferred claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported authority claim is used to justify deployment."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether harmful accretion exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle governance improves outcomes relative to a baseline or staggered control."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is scoped by risk, irreversible deletion requires records authority, protected categories are excluded, affected groups are named, and explicit halt-and-restore conditions constrain the pilot."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The domain realization preserves the archetype's defining relations, lifecycle choices, exceptions, dependency protections, and reconstruction requirements."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal treats choice architecture as behaviorally active, evaluates welfare rather than uptake alone, and incorporates autonomy, equity, subgroup effects, bounded rationality concerns, and evaluation contamination."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Changing indefinite activation into review-triggered reversible retirement plausibly reduces stale exposure and conflicting cues, though downstream welfare effects remain empirically uncertain."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and mutually coherent, including active-state distinctions, supersession, restoration, legal overrides, and context drift."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states strong counterevidence, a substantive analogy break, feasibility limits, distinct falsifiers, and several credible misuse and harm pathways."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes behavioral-intervention governance from repeated addition or episodic audit into an accountable lifecycle with sunset, exception, archival, and rollback states."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded pilot identifies eligible candidates, reversible exposure changes, comparison designs, observable outcomes, subgroup checks, and rollback conditions."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversibility and layered review limit downside, but intervention removal can have persistent behavioral effects and welfare measurement may remain ambiguous."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing nudge registries, sunset policies, or intervention-governance practices."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing behavioral-intervention registries, sunset clauses, experimentation platforms, and choice-architecture audit practices is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and distinguish any known precedents from the proposed persistent lifecycle, dependency, exception, and reversible-retirement combination.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural merit but contains no prior-art search results or novelty comparison."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and domain-specific transfer with a plausible causal lever, complete component translation, strong falsification, and careful authority boundaries. Its principal unresolved weakness is the absence of novelty evidence, which does not undermine the bounded pilot case."}