{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__linguistics_semiotics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"0ae4fe4d1825c83286963988d2ee10cd9faea836d42528eed7b9a6d5fae8de66","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies a domain-native governance problem involving obsolete annotation guidance, authority ambiguity, and reproducibility risk rather than merely restating the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive guidance versions function as accumulated temporal layers, with explicit mappings for validity change, stale authority, dependencies, exceptions, differentiated disposition, and reconstruction."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, authority labeling, dependency-gated disposition, discovery demotion, successor routing, and restoration testing plausibly reduce exposure to obsolete guidance while preserving historical interpretation."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and preserves functional distinctions among detection, policy, dependency checking, disposition, reversibility, archival recovery, and deletion marking. Mechanism selections and rejections respect their stated limits."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses, the prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no citation, measured effect, or external validation is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier separates authority drift from ambiguity or training failures, while the intervention falsifier tests lifecycle governance against both the baseline and a distinct search-and-versioning rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized pilot is read-only and bounded, destruction authority is constrained, contested and dependency-uncertain artifacts are protected, and explicit halt and rollback conditions address community, reconstruction, and retrieval harms."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The temporal-layer structure, stale-active-state hazard, differentiated lifecycle, preservation exceptions, dependency protection, and bounded-stack objective correspond closely to the archetype."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer respects versioned linguistic conventions, plural authority, historical interpretation, community interests, corpus provenance, and the nonmonotonic value of older guidance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed chain is coherent and directly targets discoverability and authority ambiguity, but its effect on annotation behavior remains appropriately unvalidated."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every supplied lifecycle component receives a concrete domain realization, including difficult translations such as storage tiers into authority visibility and decay into review priority."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts legitimate variation, distributed authority, invisible external dependencies, biased staleness judgments, minority-language invisibility, erasure conflicts, and metadata accumulation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes obsolete-guidance confusion as lifecycle governance of interpretive authority while preserving the distinction between operational currency and scholarly value."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded read-only pilot specifies a manageable corpus, observable retrieval and reconstruction outcomes, a baseline, a rival, halt conditions, and rollback."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible labeling and dependency checks offer meaningful upside with controlled initial exposure, though centralization, demotion bias, and incomplete dependency discovery remain consequential risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports that prior art is unsearched and supplies no external evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing corpus-governance, documentation-versioning, and records-lifecycle practices is not established.","repair":"Conduct scoped prior-art and practice research before making any novelty claim, while preserving the current proposal as a hypothesis.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural and causal evaluation but cannot establish external novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and presents a domain-faithful, safely testable lifecycle intervention. Its principal unresolved weakness is external novelty evidence, which does not defeat the structurally sound and explicitly hypothetical proposal."}