{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__cultural_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"56eae0a2970f31c5c49841eb9a31ebe903b24ff037f3d20295f83906dc3010db","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a concrete archival-governance problem that exists independently of the source archetype: successive public interpretations become ambiguously current, harmful, or historically important."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Interpretive metadata forms identifiable temporal layers, and the mapping preserves inventory, aging, exceptions, dependencies, differentiated disposition, restoration, and bounded active presentation."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention targets discoverability and apparent authority through review, supersession, tiered visibility, and durable markers while retaining provenance and recovery paths."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every lifecycle component receives a domain realization, and selected mechanisms retain their relevant machinery while unsuitable automated scoring, eviction, and blind rotation are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical benefit and novelty are not asserted as established facts; inferential and hypothetical claims are labeled, limitations are explicit, and the proposed pilot is framed as evidence generation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed confusion and harm exist, while the intervention falsifier separately compares lifecycle treatment with dated version history and measures both benefit and damage."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded, affected communities participate in contested decisions, the initial action is limited and reversible, hard deletion is excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect against silencing and exposure."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's accumulated-layer lifecycle structure, including active-state demotion, exceptions, dependency checks, reversible disposition, auditability, and restoration."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The translation centers representation, institutional power, contestation, marginalized voices, attribution, and archival silencing, though its empirical prevalence within actual community archives remains unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Currency labels, review, supersession, tiered presentation, and restoration plausibly reduce mistaken authority without erasing history, but user comprehension and context loss require comparative validation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and appropriately adapts technical lifecycle concepts into interpretive, curatorial, preservation, and access-governance practices."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts institutional capture, contested value, harmful-language access, tokenistic consultation, automation bias, citation breakage, restoration failure, and the possibility that visible succession is itself valuable."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Treating expiry as loss of current public authority rather than destruction creates a useful lifecycle framing that reconciles present guidance with recoverable evidence of cultural change."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded metadata pilot, explicit comparator, simulated dispositions, reversible supersession, measurable user outcomes, dependency checks, and halt criteria support a feasible test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible deployment and community review contain major risks, but institutional power asymmetry, consultation burdens, sensitive metadata exposure, and overrestriction remain consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal supplies no prior-art evidence for the combined lifecycle-governance approach.","repair":"During deep research, compare the proposal with established archival description, versioning, reparative description, community-archive governance, and digital-preservation practices before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"This limitation concerns novelty only; it does not negate the closed-book structural evaluation."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior repair or identifier change from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, culturally attentive, causally testable, reversible, and authority-bounded. It is suitable for deep research, with novelty and real-world comparative effects left explicitly unresolved."}