{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__ethnography_qualitative_methods","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"cb62be70996739d8ef314b057673e3ae07b6239ce8e9659acb90cf5b258a6f45","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The qualitative-corpus problem is independently recognizable: obsolete interpretive authority, consent-incompatible reuse, repository burden, and loss of reconstructability can arise without reference to the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Temporally accumulated qualitative artifacts correspond closely to deposits with changing validity, authority, retention obligations, dependencies, and disposition states; the proposal also preserves the tension between boundedness and recoverable memory."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Making currentness and governance states visible, triggering review, applying differentiated authority, and gating irreversible disposition on dependency checks plausibly interrupts both stale reuse and unsafe deletion."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, selected mechanisms retain their defining operations, unsuitable automatic or access-driven mechanisms are explicitly rejected, and supporting mechanisms are not presented as causal substitutes."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness, prevalence, and novelty are bounded as hypotheses or unsearched claims. The candidate does not invent studies or authorities and proposes a shadow pilot to generate evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged repository failure exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle governance improves retrieval and interpretation without worsening exposure, dispute, context loss, or reconstruction."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is constrained by consent, ethics, law, institutional policy, and recognized community governance. The first step is read-only, excluded actions are explicit, uncertainty blocks destruction, and halt and rollback conditions are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves accumulated layers, changing lifecycle value, differentiated retention, stale-active risk, dependency-sensitive disposition, reversible cleanup, exception governance, and reconstructability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects relational meaning, longitudinal value, consent, participant and community interests, evidentiary lineage, and the difference between epistemic worth and storage or access recency."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed sequence plausibly changes discovery authority and deletion safety, though the completeness of dependency traces and the behavioral effect of labels still require empirical testing."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and concrete, with adaptations that preserve function while avoiding inappropriate assumptions that age alone determines value."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses meaningful counterexamples, analogy limits, power asymmetries, incomplete graphs, sensitive metadata, archival over-retention, and selective erasure."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes repository cleanup as governance of evidence authority, context, consent, lineage, and disposition rather than simple storage reduction or fixed-date retention."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded shadow-classification pilot, retrieval comparison, dependency tracing, and restore drill are observable, reversible, and feasible without altering access or deleting content."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The read-only pilot offers substantial diagnostic value with bounded immediate risk, but centralized metadata, institutional power, and later disposition decisions remain ethically consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctness from established qualitative data stewardship, records management, repository governance, and consent-management practices is not evidenced."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposal establishes structural distinctness from the stated nearest rival but provides no prior-art evidence for novelty.","repair":"During deep research, compare the composition against qualitative data-management plans, repository preservation practice, consent and access governance, provenance systems, and records-retention workflows; identify which combined operations are absent or already standard.","evidence_boundary":"The current packet supports a closed-book structural judgment only and explicitly marks prior art as unsearched."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal effect depends on lifecycle labels changing retrieval and interpretation despite incomplete dependency representations.","repair":"Predefine retrieval-error, interpretation, dependency-coverage, exposure, dispute, and reconstruction measures for the bounded shadow pilot, including discordant cases where older artifacts remain authoritative or analytically valuable.","evidence_boundary":"Effectiveness is presently a plausible hypothesis rather than an observed result."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair record; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, so no improvement can be attributed to conceptual or operational revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is an unusually complete and domain-sensitive structural transfer. It preserves the archetype’s lifecycle logic while refusing ethically invalid age-based valuation or automatic deletion, supplies distinct falsifiers and a reversible pilot, and should advance to deep research focused on prior art and empirical causal validation."}