{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__communication_media_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"d3195ff088f8431ab76384041d30c715c90ed81dc700b6bd0c70e901d9c266eb","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The domain problem is independently recognizable: superseded publications can retain current-facing authority while deletion can damage citations, accountability, and historical reconstruction."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Publications and revisions form identifiable temporal deposits, and the proposal translates lifecycle states, retention classes, dependencies, exceptions, archival paths, rollback, and supersession markers without treating the artifacts as fungible cache entries."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes exposure to stale authority through inventory, validation triggers, editorial disposition, visible supersession, and distribution demotion, while preservation controls address the competing reconstruction objective."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, and selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, and safety roles with coherent rejection of age-, popularity-, and position-only disposal rules."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, structural claims are identified as inference, novelty is declared unassessed, and the candidate does not invent prevalence or effectiveness findings."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether unmarked supersession actually causes currentness confusion, while the intervention falsifier separately tests comparative benefit against broken references, reconstruction failures, suppression, and workload."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to publisher-controlled channels, irreversible disposition requires designated review, the first step is reversible, exclusions prevent autonomous truth adjudication and external erasure, and halt and restoration conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The accumulated-layer problem, lifecycle intervention, preservation tension, and target invariants correspond closely across the full proposal."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects publication authority, correction practice, persistent copying, editorial judgment, public-record value, citations, syndication, and archival access."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from lifecycle visibility and editorial state changes to reduced unmarked stale exposure is credible, but its behavioral effect and operating burden remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific to media artifacts, and preserves distinctions among detection, authority, disposition, dependency protection, reversibility, and restoration."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses the strongest analogy break, counterevidence, censorship risk, external dependencies, archive failure, access degradation, and permanent exceptions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes obsolete-publication handling from correction or deletion alone into governance of active communicative authority with recoverable historical states."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded read-mostly pilot has a comparator, observable outcomes, reversible actions, explicit halt criteria, and restoration checks."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential reductions in misleading exposure coexist with censorship, access, workload, and dependency risks, but bounded authority and reversible controls make initial testing proportionate."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports an unsearched prior-art status and supplies no evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing newsroom archival, correction, deindexing, and records-management practices is unknown.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, compare the composed lifecycle design with documented publisher and institutional publication-governance systems, separating novel composition from established mechanisms.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is supportable closed-book."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The causal effect on audience currentness judgments and the sustainable editorial burden remain unvalidated.","repair":"Execute the bounded comparative pilot and predefine decision thresholds for audience benefit, reference integrity, restoration reliability, suppression errors, and reviewer workload.","evidence_boundary":"The proposal provides a plausible causal model and test design but no outcome data."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; neither identifier changed within the supplied trajectory record."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-faithful, causally plausible, reversible, and independently falsifiable. It is ready for bounded empirical testing and prior-art research, with novelty remaining the principal evidence gap."}