{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__gender_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"241acc9004a3273be76f74edea75a46a347055ae3ef0d8f65de3c1d0166f9348","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently specified as accidental reuse of superseded research artifacts alongside preservation of historical interpretability, rather than merely restating the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Versioned research artifacts form identifiable temporal deposits, and the proposal maps lifecycle states, supersession, exceptions, dependencies, archival pathways, and disposition records coherently."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, contextual-staleness review, explicit lifecycle labeling, and successor-biased search routing plausibly intervene between ambiguous discovery and wrong-version reuse."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, adaptations preserve the lifecycle function, and selected mechanisms have distinct causal, safety, and testing roles without relying on rejected age-blind machinery."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effect size, feasibility, and novelty are explicitly left unverified; claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences and no external authority is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem can fail through an audit showing negligible accidental reuse, while the intervention can separately fail against the versioned-repository rival on selection, retrieval, citation, complaint, and restoration outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial pilot is read-only and bounded, irreversible disposition requires designated authority, affected parties are named, prohibited actions are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions are operational."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's accumulated-layer lifecycle, stale-authority hazard, retention tension, dependency protection, exception handling, and recoverability structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation recognizes contested categories, nonmonotonic conceptual relevance, representational harms, historical interpretation, participant constraints, and the danger of institutional gatekeeping."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention targets discovery and authority ambiguity directly, though the magnitude of wrong-version reuse and the incremental benefit over strong version control remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component receives a concrete domain realization, with careful adaptations for review attention, visibility, contested value, and preservation of distinct historical versions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts intentional historical reuse, conceptual disagreement, minority-framework suppression, incomplete dependencies, archival failure, authority capture, and curator workload."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes obsolete-artifact handling from simple version control or deletion into accountable lifecycle governance balancing current-use routing with historical and representational obligations."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded reversible pilot, matched searches, explicit outcomes, restoration drills, and rollback are feasible, but labeling reliability and governance workload need operational validation."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A read-only pilot limits immediate harm and could reduce misuse, while remaining risks include false staleness judgments, authority overreach, access degradation, and displaced curation labor."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty or differentiation from existing repository-governance practice."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal supplies no prior-art evidence for novelty or for differentiation from mature repository and records-governance workflows.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, compare the full intervention bundle with established versioning, metadata, repository-preservation, and records-lifecycle practices using authoritative literature and documented implementations.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural quality and testability only; it does not establish prevalence, effect size, feasibility at scale, or novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor, changed identifiers, or registered repairs against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes all reject-first gates and meets the success thresholds through a strong domain-specific structural transfer, coherent causal intervention, complete mechanism translation, distinct falsifiers, and bounded authority. Deep research is still warranted because novelty and empirical magnitude remain unverified."}