{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__education_pedagogy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"d0a14e295b7e312d110d5662b07f722442b101613753c343a768ecf3ae6adbcf","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The diagnosed problem is independently recognizable in education: superseded instructional artifacts remain discoverable while preservation and reconstruction needs inhibit cleanup."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Course offerings and revisions form identifiable temporal deposits, and the proposal maps accumulation, staleness, unequal retention value, dependencies, disposition states, and bounded discovery without relying on superficial vocabulary."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, authority labeling, class-based retention, dependency gating, restricted archiving, and reversible disposition plausibly act on the stated causes of mistaken reuse and cleanup avoidance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain-specific realizations, selected mechanisms retain their defining operations, and capacity-driven eviction and blind rotation are appropriately rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and the proposal does not present unsupported findings as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the accumulating stale stack exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle governance improves discovery without unacceptable dependency, access, workload, or recovery harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority is partitioned among content owners, administrators, and records authorities; the initial pilot is reversible; hard deletion and sensitive actions are excluded; and explicit halt and rollback conditions are provided."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal stack, differentiated lifecycle states, exception handling, dependency protection, reversible cleanup, and bounded active layer."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Artifacts, actors, authority conflicts, assessment context, accessibility, learner records, course reuse, and institutional preservation duties are rendered specifically to educational practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention directly addresses visibility, authority ambiguity, retention uncertainty, and deletion risk, although its effect on actual mistaken use and workload remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally differentiated, with adaptations that preserve function rather than merely renaming storage concepts."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies boundary conditions, distinguishes instructional artifacts from passive storage, states rival explanations, supplies separate falsifiers, and anticipates governance and access failures."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes scattered course cleanup and version confusion as governed lifecycle management balancing current authority with historical reconstructability."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The scoped reversible pilot, comparison group, observable outcomes, restore checks, and halt conditions support testing, but sampling, matching, and tolerance-setting still require protocol detail."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"Read-only inventory, restricted archiving, dependency checks, quarantine, restoration, divided authority, and rollback make the proposed pilot proportionate to its prospective benefit."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to learning-platform lifecycle controls, records-management practice, or educational content-governance systems."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and prior-art differentiation are unsupported.","repair":"During deep research, compare the composition against learning-management-system versioning, institutional records schedules, digital-preservation workflows, curriculum governance, and educational content lifecycle systems; then identify which claimed combination or causal use is genuinely distinct.","evidence_boundary":"The current record is structurally evaluable but explicitly unsearched and therefore supports no novelty conclusion."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot protocol leaves matching criteria and harm tolerances underspecified.","repair":"Pre-register course matching variables, artifact sampling rules, measurement procedures, access-error definitions, dependency-failure criteria, restore-success criteria, workload accounting, and halt thresholds before implementation.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate names appropriate outcomes and safeguards but provides no empirical basis for selecting thresholds."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repair registry, and no earlier candidate from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for deep research. Its strongest features are faithful lifecycle structure, complete component translation, education-specific authority and preservation constraints, separate falsifiers, and a reversible pilot. The principal unresolved boundary is novelty, with secondary protocol detail needed before execution."}