{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__computer_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"da4d8ae880057c3110b0b9d943f57b30818760aec80ef6d5f9116b4487557023","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The registry problem is independently specified through identifiable artifacts, actors, observable states, consequences, and a bounded objective rather than being defined by the archetype label."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Versioned artifact deposition, supersession, stale discoverability, differentiated retention, dependency-sensitive removal, and bounded lifecycle governance closely correspond to the source structure without triggering an anti-signature."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes disposition behavior through policy eligibility, dependency vetoes, archival, reversible quarantine, restoration verification, and recorded destruction decisions."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every listed archetype component has a concrete registry realization, while selected mechanisms have distinct roles, explicit adaptations, removal counterfactuals, and appropriate veto relationships."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical efficacy and prevalence are explicitly bounded as hypotheses; structural claims are labeled, prior-art status is unsearched, and sampled restoration is not generalized beyond its coverage."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether material accumulation and conflict exist, whereas the intervention falsifier separately compares lifecycle governance with age-only cleanup using benefit, harm, compliance, and effort outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority over policy, holds, dependency review, and execution is separated; the pilot excludes irreversible production deletion and includes explicit halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's accumulated-layer lifecycle structure, including supersession, stale authority, differentiated disposition, exceptions, dependency protection, and auditability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Digest identity, shared blobs, manifests, deployment references, provenance, registry tiers, quarantine, and restoration are credible software-registry realizations."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain plausibly reduces obsolete exposure and active storage while protecting rollback, though hidden external consumers and unspecified operating thresholds remain important uncertainties."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and specific, and adapted components retain their intended function rather than merely borrowing terminology."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses shared blobs, external digest references, false precision, incomplete graphs, erasure conflicts, restore failure, and accumulating exceptions with vetoes or explicit failure conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes registry cleanup as governed lifecycle disposition rather than age-based garbage collection, although several constituent practices are familiar."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The scoped pilot, observable artifact state, comparator, restoration drills, quarantine, and rollback make testing feasible, but acceptance thresholds still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible staging and hard vetoes constrain downside while storage and discoverability benefits are measurable; residual hidden-reference and recovery risks remain."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The record explicitly reports that prior art is unsearched and supplies no evidence supporting novelty."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Pilot acceptance bounds and recovery objectives are referenced but not instantiated.","repair":"Before execution, define artifact-class thresholds for stale exposure, dependency misses, restoration fidelity and latency, policy violations, operator effort, and allowable rollback risk.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values require local workload, service-criticality, compliance, and recovery data and cannot be inferred from the closed-book packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty is unsupported because relevant prior art has not been searched.","repair":"Compare the composition with registry retention, garbage collection, artifact attestation, archival restoration, and soft-deletion systems before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate appropriately makes no novelty claim; external research is needed only to establish distinctiveness."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier; the record reports neither identifier as changed, so no trajectory improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for success. Its main unresolved weakness is absent novelty evidence, while empirical thresholds remain a downstream pilot-design task rather than a structural defect."}