{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__biology_ecology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"c73f2cdb3ae9c6b4a6b32968016eeedf264417e6fbdb5f392728f3abdfe825c5","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The ecological-archive problem is independently specified through observable accumulation, stale interpretation, storage burden, and preservation risks rather than asserted only by analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Dated sampling cohorts and their specimens, derivatives, metadata, and interpretations form genuine sequential deposits with changing lifecycle states, dependencies, and differentiated disposition paths."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, dependency gating, governed retention, compatible tier migration, reversible quarantine, and restore testing plausibly connect the intervention to bounded capacity and safer interpretation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, load-bearing mechanisms are distinguished from supporting safeguards, and unsuitable automatic eviction, rotation, and expiry mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical maturity and prior-art limits are disclosed, uncertain scientific-value claims are bounded, and no unsupported effect estimates or invented authorities are presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed accumulation and staleness exist, while the intervention falsifier separately tests pilot benefit and preservation harms against baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Accountable curatorial authority, rights-holder and compliance review, protected classes, reversible first steps, halt conditions, and rollback provisions appropriately constrain irreversible disposition."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal deposits, changing value, stale-active risk, dependency-sensitive retirement, exception handling, tiering, auditability, and reversible disposition structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects specimen uniqueness, biological degradation, destructive analysis, lineage, taxonomy, permits, cultural rights, and the irreversibility of physical loss."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and guarded, but actual capacity relief and preservation performance remain pilot-dependent and may be limited when holdings are unique."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed lifecycle component receives a concrete ecological realization, with careful adaptation where digital assumptions would be unsafe for biological material."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts unforeseen future value, incomplete lineage, degradation during movement, rights conflicts, restore failure, keep-all drift, and misleading composite scores."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes archive pressure from a binary keep-or-destroy choice into governed lifecycle states that separate active authority, preservation, access tier, and disposition."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded cohort pilot, shadow scoring, reversible migration, restore drill, halt criteria, and comparative falsifier are implementable, though measurement thresholds need predefinition."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible tiering and strict exclusions offer credible benefit with bounded initial exposure, while incomplete dependencies and irreversible biological information loss remain material residual risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is evidentially supported."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot falsifier names outcome categories but does not operationalize their measurement or acceptable harm thresholds.","repair":"Predeclare capacity, retrieval, stale-label, identity, dependency, restoration, and objection measures with decision rules before migration begins.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book review supports test structure but cannot establish appropriate empirical thresholds."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Composite ranking may still conceal disagreements about uniqueness, future option value, and rights even when factor-level scores are exposed.","repair":"Require factor-level review, uncertainty flags, and noncompensatory vetoes for uniqueness, unresolved rights, and dependency uncertainty.","evidence_boundary":"The proposal identifies false precision as a risk but provides no validation evidence for weights or ranking behavior."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing collection-management and biobanking lifecycle practices is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and state which elements are established practice, domain adaptations, or genuinely distinctive composition.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly reports unsearched prior art, so novelty cannot be inferred from the packet."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for success. It is structurally complete, biologically careful, causally coherent, falsifiable, and safely bounded; empirical calibration and novelty remain research tasks rather than structural defects."}