{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__disaster_management","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ce6e32d048ace20fde744b5cbf7ee62aa758a579d1887053fa9ba8b9dbcd45b5","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable disaster-operations problem: superseded artifacts remain discoverable and can be mistaken for current direction while still carrying evidentiary value."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Sequential artifacts, stale active layers, preservation tension, lifecycle states, and reconstructable boundedness correspond directly to the archetype without collapsing into generic document management."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, semantic-staleness detection, lifecycle labels, and successor redirects plausibly change artifact selection, while gated archival and quarantine reduce active clutter without sacrificing reconstruction."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete domain realization, and selected mechanisms retain their defining operations, limits, and distinct roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported result is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct observable falsifiers, a concrete rival, an analogy break, and adverse outcomes that would count against the intervention."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided appropriately among incident command, records administration, and specialist reviewers; the first step is retrospective and non-destructive, with explicit halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full lifecycle structure, including accumulation, stale authority, differentiated disposition, dependency protection, exceptions, reversibility, and reconstruction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Artifacts, operational roles, repositories, reimbursement needs, investigations, holds, and retrieval demands are rendered in disaster-management terms with credible institutional boundaries."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The pathway from visibility and state labeling through successor redirection to safer disposition is coherent, though its operational effect remains empirically untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and translates abstract lifecycle functions into specific incident-artifact controls without obvious placeholders."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate addresses age blindness, incomplete dependencies, legal holds, restoration failure, privacy conflict, and cross-agency inconsistency, while acknowledging unresolved metadata coverage."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes scattered version-control and archiving difficulties as one governed lifecycle problem linking operational authority with accountable historical preservation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow-mode retrospective pilot, retrieval comparisons, restoration drills, and halt conditions are executable, although multi-repository identity resolution may be difficult."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A non-destructive pilot offers meaningful potential benefit with bounded initial exposure, while later deployment would require stringent dependency, privacy, and authority controls."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet reports no prior-art search or comparative evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The prevalence and operational consequence of superseded-artifact exposure remain hypothetical.","repair":"Use the proposed retrospective pilot to measure co-visibility, incorrect artifact selection, retrieval delay, dependency misses, and restoration outcomes against the stated baseline and rival.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a falsifiable design but no observed incident results."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing incident-document, records-retention, and archival-governance systems is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct prior-art comparison focused on whether the integrated combination of semantic staleness detection, successor redirection, dependency-gated disposition, quarantine, and restore validation is already established.","evidence_boundary":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is warranted."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier; both change flags are reported as unchanged and no earlier repair is claimed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"A strong and safety-conscious structural transfer with complete component coverage, faithful mechanism use, distinct falsifiers, and an executable non-destructive pilot. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain open but are explicitly bounded rather than fabricated."}