{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__futurism_foresight","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"edd536b0282c7942609751525e2050af14d735111068aa5bb3dbf8e7f85d24af","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently stated as obsolete foresight artifacts retaining apparent current authority while preservation needs inhibit cleanup; it does not depend on the source analogy to be intelligible."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Repeated scans, scenarios, forecasts, assumptions, and reports form identifiable temporal deposits, and the proposed lifecycle states correspond to refresh, demotion, archival, preservation, and removal."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention targets the stated failure mechanism by detecting contextual staleness, withdrawing current authority in search and decision workflows, and governing later disposition subject to dependencies and holds."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, while selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, and safety roles; unsuitable age-only, cache, stream-rotation, and fixed-expiry mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses, corpus material is distinguished from inference, limitations are acknowledged, and no unsupported external evidence or novelty claim is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether authority ambiguity exists, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether lifecycle governance improves selection and review without unacceptable dependency or restoration failures."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among stewards, owners, and records or legal stakeholders; the pilot is reversible, hard deletion and hold overrides are excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect affected parties."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The temporal deposits, stale-active default, retention tension, lifecycle states, dependency checks, exceptions, reversible cleanup, and auditability closely preserve the archetype structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal respects foresight-specific properties, including contextual rather than monotonic decay, the continuing historical value of old scenarios, plural possibilities, contested interpretation, and decision lineage."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Making authority states visible and enforcing them through search demotion should reduce mistaken selection, but the behavioral effect remains untested and depends on workflow adoption and ownership."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every supplied component receives a concrete foresight realization, and the translations preserve functional distinctions among authority, retention, access, reconstruction, exceptions, and deletion safety."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies strong counterevidence, a genuine analogy break, adoption and archive failure modes, suppression risk, and separate problem and intervention falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer reframes repository clutter as unmanaged authority over time, yielding actionable distinctions among current guidance, historical evidence, superseded material, and safe disposition."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded reversible pilot, comparator, observable outcomes, and rollback path are usable, though sampling, classification reliability, metric definitions, and decision thresholds remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible demotion and dependency gates limit irreversible harm, but governance burden, minority-view suppression, confidentiality exposure, and misclassification still require empirical monitoring."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports novelty relative to existing foresight repository governance or records-management practice."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to established foresight knowledge-management and records-governance practice is unknown.","repair":"During deep research, compare the proposed authority-state and lifecycle combination against documented repository, scenario-library, and records-management systems before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural originality only as an unevaluated possibility; it supplies no prior-art evidence."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot names useful outcomes but leaves classification reliability, sampling, metric calculation, and halt thresholds incompletely operationalized.","repair":"Pre-register artifact sampling, reviewer agreement checks, stale-selection and review-effort measures, restoration tests, and explicit halt criteria before execution.","evidence_boundary":"This is an operational specification gap, not evidence that the proposed causal lever fails."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed, so no revision improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and domain-aware transfer with a coherent authority-centered causal lever, complete component translation, strong falsification, and reversible governance. Its principal unresolved issue is absent prior-art evidence, with a secondary need to pre-specify pilot measurement details."}