{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__geoengineering_planetary_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"7712c1f2ccfea3c8e0167f22c697aff13a2de776e1e3375d02c933fffc6e1a3c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The accumulation, stale-authority, reproducibility, and storage-governance problem exists independently of the proposed lifecycle intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive scientific artifacts are genuine temporal deposits, and the proposal preserves the archetype's lifecycle states, differentiated dispositions, dependency checks, exceptions, and reconstruction safeguards."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, supersession detection, governed classification, search demotion, recoverable tiering, and restoration checks form a coherent chain from the stated problem to a smaller and less ambiguous active evidence stack."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms are distinguished from supporting and incompatible mechanisms, and rejected mechanisms are not smuggled back into the intervention."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and baseline claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, inference claims are labeled, no unsupported citations or search claims appear, and the unsearched prior-art boundary is disclosed."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed repository condition exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle governance improves outcomes without damaging reproduction, restoration, classification legitimacy, or evidence retrieval."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal confines authority to repository governance, requires institutional policy and owner or scientific-governance approval for irreversible deletion, begins read-only, uses quarantine and restoration, names affected parties, and defines concrete halt conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The temporal deposits, stale active state, retention tension, exception logic, reversible disposition, and bounded-stack outcome closely reproduce the archetype."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The transfer is credibly expressed through simulation generations, provenance, reproducibility, intervention assumptions, scientific review, and policy evidence, though the repository problem is not unique to this domain and its prevalence remains unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanisms plausibly reduce stale-authority exposure and active-tier burden while protecting reconstruction, but effect size and dependency observability remain empirical uncertainties."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, internally consistent, and supported by appropriately adapted mechanisms and explicit vetoes."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses scientific artifacts that gain value over time, invisible external dependencies, false precision, archive failure, minority-evidence loss, and conflicts involving destruction obligations."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes repository cleanup from storage reduction into governance of scientific authority, recoverability, and lifecycle state, although parts overlap established research-data stewardship practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded, read-only-first pilot specifies scope, sampling, dependency tracing, restoration proof, approval constraints, measurable outcomes, halt conditions, and rollback."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible labeling and tiering offer meaningful interpretability and cost benefits with controlled initial exposure, while classification burden, hidden dependencies, and archive degradation retain material downside."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The synthesis may be useful, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty relative to scientific repository lifecycle and preservation practice."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The prevalence and operational importance of stale or ambiguously authoritative artifacts in the target repositories are asserted only as hypotheses.","repair":"Audit a representative repository sample and measure lifecycle-label coverage, superseded-artifact retrieval, active-tier burden, dependency completeness, and restoration readiness before generalizing the diagnosis.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a credible structural inference but no observed repository data."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing research-data retention, provenance, archival, and repository-governance practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison and identify which combined lifecycle controls, causal claims, or governance features are materially distinct.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly reports unsearched prior art, so novelty cannot be inferred from internal coherence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs or revision baseline 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 offers a structurally faithful, domain-credible, reversible, and testable transfer. Its principal unresolved boundary is evidentiary rather than structural: repository prevalence, intervention effects, and novelty still require external validation."}