{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__logistics_supply_chain","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"1edfa4a03e3c53683e3919e9e7fe7c94629132f6356be78b490e3055d67fa89c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The logistics problem is independently coherent: superseded operational instructions can remain accessible and hazardous while historical versions retain evidentiary and reconstruction value."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Versioned instructions instantiate sequential deposits, stale active layers, differentiated retention, dependency-sensitive disposition, preservation exceptions, and bounded authoritative visibility."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention acts on the proposed failure path by resolving identities, detecting stale or superseded versions, gating disposition on obligations and dependencies, and removing approved versions from normal operational exposure."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, and the selected mechanisms retain their defining functions; unsuitable eviction, rotation, and fixed-expiry mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and outcome claims are labeled as hypotheses, inferential mappings are identified, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported result is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether harmful version exposure or ambiguity exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle controls improve exposure or retrieval without unacceptable operational or recovery failures."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among instruction, records, compliance, and system owners; the bounded pilot excludes hard deletion, defines halt conditions, and provides immediate rollback through quarantine restoration."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely preserves the archetype's accumulated-layer structure, retention-removal tension, lifecycle states, exception handling, recoverability, and bounded active stack."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in logistics operations through routing guides, handling and packing rules, carrier instructions, TMS/WMS dependencies, claims, sites, lanes, and operational ownership."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal sequence is explicit and credible, but the prevalence of stale selection and the magnitude of operational benefit remain empirical hypotheses for the pilot."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and function-preserving, including identity, aging, retention, dependencies, disposition, holds, rollback, tiering, restoration, and stale-context detection."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses the strongest benign-history alternative, limits the analogy to information artifacts, identifies implementation failure conditions, and separates problem from intervention counterevidence."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It reframes document-version clutter as a governed lifecycle and dependency problem, adding disposition and recovery logic beyond ordinary current-version publication."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded, reversible pilot is operationally credible and includes observable exposure, retrieval, dependency, quarantine, and restoration outcomes, though tolerances still require predefinition."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential safety and retrieval benefits are meaningful, while distributed approval, no-hard-delete piloting, quarantine, holds, and rollback constrain downside despite unresolved dependency-discovery risk."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet provides no evidence that the composition is novel relative to existing document-control and records-lifecycle practice."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The operational prevalence and effect size are hypotheses rather than demonstrated conditions.","repair":"Before broader deployment, predeclare pilot tolerances and measure stale-version exposure, mistaken selection, retrieval time, dependency incidents, and restore outcomes against the baseline.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural and causal plausibility but contains no observed logistics-site results."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to document-control, records-management, and logistics knowledge-management practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct bounded prior-art research before making any novelty or differentiation claim.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate accurately declares its prior-art status as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs to compare."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate survives every reject-first gate and provides a structurally complete, domain-specific, reversible lifecycle intervention. Its main unresolved questions concern empirical prevalence, realized effect, and prior art rather than structural fit or safety."}