{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__engineering_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"87d51dcbd639ce8cc05ad67a291d034c06c520dc93ff71eb8684e0654f5c8ff0","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The engineering problem is independently recognizable as obsolete design records retaining apparent authority while uncertain retention and dependencies obstruct safe disposition."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive engineering revisions correspond directly to accumulated layers, and the proposal preserves the archetype's distinctions among active use, supersession, archival, quarantine, destruction, and exceptions."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Lifecycle-state gating acts on the stated failure pathway by removing superseded artifacts from ordinary selection before deletion, while dependency, retention, and recovery controls govern later disposition."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, selected mechanisms retain their defining machinery, unsuitable eviction and rotation mechanisms are explicitly rejected, and load-bearing safeguards are identified by counterfactual removal."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effect claims are explicitly bounded as unverified hypotheses or inferences; the candidate does not present fabricated measurements, citations, or validated outcomes."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed exposure exists independently of the intervention, while the intervention falsifier compares lifecycle gating against the baseline and separately tests dependency and recovery failure."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"A configuration-control board owns state changes, specialist authorities retain scoped vetoes, the first step is read-only, irreversible actions are excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect authoritative records."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves accumulation, changing validity, stale authority, differentiated disposition, dependency protection, exception handling, recoverability, and bounded-stack governance without relying on age alone."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation is specific to engineering configuration control, certification evidence, design baselines, supplier use, maintenance, reconstruction, and governed record authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and targets visibility, authority, retention, dependencies, and recoverability, but its effect magnitude and dependency coverage remain unvalidated."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, distinguishes direct from adapted realizations, and is reinforced by mechanism selections, rejections, vetoes, and counterfactual-removal statements."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest absence condition, the age-validity analogy break, downstream enforcement failure, a credible rival, and distinct problem and intervention falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes repository cleanup as authority-aware lifecycle governance, although much of the implementation draws on familiar configuration-management, records-retention, and archival practices."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded read-only pilot, sampled baseline comparison, dependency tracing, restore exercise, halt conditions, and reversible progression are executable, but quantitative tolerances and sampling rules are not yet specified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed first step offers useful diagnostic value with limited operational exposure, while incomplete dependency discovery, classification errors, privacy conflicts, and archive failures remain material risks for later deployment."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The candidate labels prior-art status as unsearched and supplies no evidence that the integrated intervention is novel relative to established engineering records and configuration-control practice."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally coherent, falsifiable, and authority-bounded transfer. Its principal limitation is absent novelty evidence, with secondary uncertainty around empirical effect size, sampling, thresholds, and dependency completeness."}