{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__data_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"0ef49523c1b0a6fc694f8d0828cb2b642d5e0c03a419fedb0025266ca7de81be","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The data-science problem is independently specified through observable artifact accumulation, stale discovery, uncertain dependencies, and cleanup avoidance; it does not depend on the source analogy for relevance."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Versioned analytical artifacts instantiate sequential deposits, changing active usefulness, differentiated retention, archival pathways, dependency risk, and bounded-stack governance with strong element-level correspondence."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, staleness detection, retention authority, dependency gates, reversible disposition, and restore verification directly intervene on the stated pathways that keep obsolete artifacts active or make cleanup unsafe."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, adapted components preserve their essential function, selected mechanisms have explicit causal or safety roles, and rejected mechanisms are distinguished with counterfactual justification."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, mapping claims are labeled, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported external authority or result is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed accumulation and misuse exist, while the intervention falsifier separately tests search, triage, retirement, dependency, restoration, and compliance outcomes against a baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is partitioned by reversibility and sensitivity; the initial pilot excludes hard deletion, and holds, unresolved dependencies, restoration failures, privacy duties, audit gaps, and contested actions produce blocks or rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal stack, lifecycle states, differentiated disposition, exception handling, dependency protection, recoverability, and boundedness without collapsing the pattern into storage cleanup alone."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Datasets, feature snapshots, models, notebooks, reports, lineage, reproducibility, model risk, privacy, and analytical discovery are used in technically credible and domain-specific ways."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The chain links visibility of stale artifacts to governed eligibility, safety checks, removal from active discovery, recoverable disposition, and verification of reconstruction promises, with clear counterfactual roles."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and preserves important distinctions among age, semantic staleness, retention authority, dependency safety, storage tiering, compaction, deletion, and restoration."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses incomplete lineage, nonmonotonic value with age, false staleness, lossy compaction, archive failure, privacy conflicts, permanent exceptions, and governance concentration."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes scattered catalog, retention, storage, and deletion problems as one governed lifecycle whose central objective is removing obsolete authority while preserving reconstructive memory."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow pilot, registry audit, search outcomes, owner triage, restore drills, and halt conditions are testable, though reliable lineage coverage and sustained metadata ownership remain substantial operational dependencies."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible actions and staged authority create a favorable initial risk posture, but incomplete dependency discovery, sensitive-data retention conflicts, and cold-tier access failures remain consequential hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim beyond the internal composition."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty and prior-art differentiation are unevidenced.","repair":"During deep research, compare the composition against established model registries, metadata catalogs, records-retention systems, data lifecycle management, and reproducibility platforms before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"This is a research extension rather than a gate repair because the candidate explicitly marks prior art as unsearched and does not rely on novelty for its causal case."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Operational feasibility depends on lineage completeness and durable metadata ownership.","repair":"Use the bounded pilot to estimate dependency coverage, stale-label precision, exception aging, restoration success, and owner workload before authorizing broader automation.","evidence_boundary":"The current proposal supplies falsifiers and safety blocks but no observed pilot results."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; remaining uncertainty is evidentiary and operational rather than attributable to revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is an unusually complete and disciplined translation: it preserves the lifecycle archetype, separates semantic staleness from deletion authority, assigns mechanisms distinct causal and safety roles, and proposes a reversible test with independent problem and intervention falsifiers. Empirical performance and novelty remain unestablished, but those boundaries are disclosed and do not undermine the structurally testable proposal."}