{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__law_governance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"7154c81b8ce09c76b815fef31abe5fff6006aebe0d70d8f7be2d83f470fc20da","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The agency-guidance problem is independently intelligible, identifies affected actors and artifacts, and remains explicitly falsifiable rather than presuming the archetype applies."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive guidance artifacts form a genuine temporal stack, with differentiated active value, stale-authority risk, preservation exceptions, dependency concerns, and governed disposition paths."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lifecycle states, review triggers, authority controls, dependency gates, visible markers, and archival checks plausibly connect the diagnosed ambiguity to safer identification and disposition of guidance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, and unsuitable cache eviction and blind rotation mechanisms are rejected rather than forced into the transfer."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and baseline claims are labeled as hypotheses, legal conclusions are bounded, no external evidence is invented, and the proposal limits itself to claims testable in a pilot."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether stale-guidance accumulation materially exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle governance improves identification without unacceptable errors."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to issuing, counsel, and records functions; legal effect is reserved to empowered bodies; the initial pilot is non-dispositive; and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect affected parties."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's accumulated-layer lifecycle, stale-active-state, exception, dependency, reversible-disposition, and reconstruction structure with little distortion."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer respects formal legal authority, records duties, notice, reliance, judicial interpretation, holds, and the distinction between metadata status and lawful repeal."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and testable, although its effectiveness depends on visible authoritative labels and sufficiently complete discovery of dependencies and holds."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and appropriately distinguishes direct from adapted realizations."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses authority decay analogies, false precision, missed holds, access degradation, restoration failure, irreversible disposition, and temporal-context loss."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes guidance cleanup from document housekeeping into governed state transitions that jointly manage operative clarity, accountability, and historical reconstruction."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded shadow pilot, observable outcomes, comparison baseline, halt conditions, and restoration exercise are actionable, though measurement procedures and acceptance thresholds remain to be operationalized."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A recommendation-only pilot offers meaningful diagnostic value with limited immediate legal risk, while mislabeling and incomplete dependency discovery remain consequential hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and no novelty claim or comparative evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing agency guidance-management and records-governance practices is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and distinguish the integrated lifecycle proposal from existing status-register, records-retention, archival, and website-governance systems.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural quality but contains no prior-art search results."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot names useful outcomes but does not operationalize sampling, comparison assignment, measurement instruments, or decision thresholds.","repair":"Pre-register artifact sampling, blinded user tasks, ambiguity coding, hold-detection checks, restoration criteria, and acceptable error boundaries before the pilot begins.","evidence_boundary":"The proposal supplies falsifiers and safety stops, but empirical performance remains untested."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior candidate, changed identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears every reject-first gate through a faithful lifecycle transfer, strong legal-authority boundaries, complete component translation, and distinct falsifiers. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain research tasks, but neither gap is concealed or required for the bounded shadow pilot."}