{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__criminology_forensic","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ef81f90e5952189edd41d08045607ff00126d63b36855c63e42a3cecd0df3c75","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The forensic-repository problem is independently recognizable: obsolete derivatives can retain apparent authority, while cleanup can threaten disclosure, reconstruction, and evidentiary integrity."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive case artifacts correspond directly to temporal deposits, and the proposal translates lifecycle states, retention exceptions, dependencies, archival paths, supersession, and reversible deletion without collapsing the problem into generic storage management."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed sequence directly targets the stated consequences by identifying stale artifacts, applying authorized retention rules, blocking unsafe disposition, demoting retained material, and preserving restoration and lineage. Benefit magnitude remains an empirical pilot question."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a forensic realization, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit roles and removal counterfactuals, and unsuitable clock-, capacity-, and generation-based mechanisms are rejected for domain-specific reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effectiveness are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, structural claims are marked as inference, prior art is declared unsearched, and the proposal does not invent jurisdiction-specific authority."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether harmful accumulation exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the governed lifecycle improves active search and effort without violating safety constraints."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to custodial and records functions under controlling legal obligations; the first step is read-only, destructive actions are excluded, affected parties are identified, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect evidence and disclosure."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The temporal stack, changing layer value, stale authority, retention exceptions, dependency risk, differentiated disposition, and reconstruction safeguards are all preserved in the domain translation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal consistently distinguishes originals, derivatives, notes, reports, disclosure sets, holds, appeals, chain-of-custody reconstruction, scientific reinterpretation, and jurisdiction-dependent authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanisms plausibly reduce misleading active artifacts while preserving required evidence, but the prevalence of the problem and size of the operational benefit remain untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally differentiated, with age treated as a review input rather than an evidentiary-value override."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses uniquely valuable old evidence, incomplete dependency graphs, missed holds, biased staleness labels, archive failure, privacy exposure, and unsafe automated expiry."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes indiscriminate retention versus deletion as governed state transitions with explicit authority, lineage, restoration, and exception handling."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded read-only shadow pilot, comparison baseline, observable outcomes, safety failures, and rollback are specified, though local sampling rules and outcome definitions still require operational precommitment."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The non-destructive pilot has credible informational value and strong safeguards, while any later production use would remain high consequence and dependent on local legal validation."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No prior-art evidence establishes that the artifact-level lifecycle combination is novel within forensic repository practice.","repair":"Before making a novelty claim, compare the proposal with documented forensic laboratory retention, evidence-management, archival-restoration, and supersession workflows.","evidence_boundary":"This requires external research and cannot be resolved from the closed-book packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot names outcomes but does not fully operationalize sampling strata, stale-search measurement, review-effort measurement, or authority-label adjudication.","repair":"Predeclare the sampling frame, artifact-level denominators, adjudication procedure, baseline observation window, and safety-event accounting before running the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"These details can be supplied by authorized local operators without changing the problem or causal lever."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate through strong structural translation, domain-specific authority controls, distinct falsifiers, and a reversible read-only pilot. Empirical benefit and novelty remain bounded rather than fabricated; the empty repair registry leaves nothing to supersede."}