{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__innovation_entrepreneurship","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"02ca3efed4f3ef2ff3bcee268f8d61f6f0d378ea2526fce2ea0203a7086be970","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The venture-evidence problem is independently specified through observable authority ambiguity, decision consequences, affected actors, and a direct problem falsifier rather than being defined by the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive evidence artifacts, stale active status, retention-versus-reconstruction tension, differentiated dispositions, and an interpretable bounded stack correspond closely to the archetype without collapsing into generic knowledge management."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Lifecycle labels and supersession markers directly change which evidence appears authoritative, while retention rules, dependency checks, and reversible disposition address clutter and preservation through a coherent causal chain."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, selected mechanisms retain their distinctive machinery, load-bearing roles have counterfactual tests, and content-blind or falsely precise mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness, prevalence, and final outcomes are bounded as hypotheses or inferences; prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported external evidence is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether stale evidence is consequential before intervention, while the intervention falsifier separately tests comparative retrieval, selection, dependency, classification, and restoration outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is role-bounded, the initial pilot is limited and read-only-first, irreversible and sensitive actions are excluded, affected parties may contest classifications, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect dependencies and retrieval."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal accumulation, stale-authority hazard, exception-governed retention, dependency-safe disposition, recoverability, and bounded-stack invariants."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer is grounded in recognizable venture artifacts, stage reviews, pivots, experiment lineage, investor obligations, and contested interpretations rather than relying on storage terminology alone."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The immediate visibility and authority pathway is credible and measurable, although downstream improvement in venture decisions remains contingent on repository use and may be dominated by incentives or evidence quality."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete venture-domain realization, with particularly strong treatment of identity, supersession, holds, dependencies, quarantine, restoration, and stale-context detection."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies rival causes, interpretive analogy limits, tacit dependencies, shadow copies, selective storytelling, contested labels, and archive friction, then connects them to tests or safeguards."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating obsolete venture knowledge as lifecycle-governed evidence clarifies authority, preservation, and deletion as one system, though parts overlap familiar records and knowledge-governance practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded comparative pilot specifies corpus scope, treatment actions, observable outcomes, authority limits, exclusions, halt conditions, and rollback behavior."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible, restricted pilot offers meaningful decision-quality and stewardship upside with controlled exposure, while privacy duties, sanitization risk, and false authority remain material concerns."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The synthesis may be useful, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no comparative novelty evidence establishes distinction from records management, knowledge governance, or decision-log practices."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing records-management, knowledge-governance, experiment-repository, and decision-log practices is not established.","repair":"During deep research, compare the complete lifecycle-state and authority-gating system against the nearest established practices and identify any genuinely differentiating configuration or outcome.","evidence_boundary":"This is a prior-art gap, not evidence against the proposal's structural fit or bounded pilot."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior candidate revision, unchanged identifiers, or registered repairs against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, independently falsifiable domain transfer with complete component translation, disciplined mechanism selection, explicit evidence bounds, and unusually careful authority and rollback controls. Its principal unresolved weakness is novelty evidence rather than structural, causal, operational, or safety fitness."}