{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__marine_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"e231353349d25ed0b9d2a7805e9cbb696223a8c8ebfbca6df5d3790ab875e24a","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The observatory problem is independently specified through discoverability, superseded-product access, storage growth, disposition backlog, and reproducibility risk rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive data releases are genuine temporal deposits, and the proposal preserves the central tension between retiring stale active layers and retaining reconstructive memory."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, authority markers, dependency vetoes, governed dispositions, reversible deletion, and restore drills act directly on the stated pathways producing confusion, cost, and reconstruction risk."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-translated, while selected mechanisms retain their defining functions and content-blind mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported marine-science result is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem audit and intervention pilot have distinct rejection conditions with observable outcomes, baseline comparison, and specified harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Joint authority, affected-party governance, a read-only pilot, explicit exclusions, halt conditions, and reversible recovery adequately constrain the proposed first step."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates accumulated temporal layers, stale active authority, differentiated retention, dependency-sensitive disposition, archival recovery, and accountable deletion."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation uses credible observatory objects and practices, including calibration lineage, persistent identifiers, scientific reconstruction, repository custody, governed restrictions, and lossless preservation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and targets the diagnosed pathways, but the frequency of obsolete-version selection and the intervention effects remain empirically untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete observatory realization, with scientifically important adaptations preventing age from being confused with declining validity."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses the strongest analogy break, names counterevidence, separates diagnosis from intervention failure, and anticipates dependency, authority, retrieval, and preservation failures."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It turns a narrow labeling or storage problem into a governed lifecycle problem that jointly handles authority, cost, lineage, recoverability, and accountable retirement."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded read-only pilot, representative audit, simulated dispositions, restore sample, comparison baseline, measurable outcomes, and halt rules support a feasible test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The initial action is low-risk and reversible, while the prospective benefits address meaningful confusion and stewardship burdens; high-consequence deletion remains gated."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the composition or application is novel."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The packet provides no prior-art or novelty evidence for the lifecycle composition in ocean-observatory stewardship.","repair":"During deep research, compare the proposal with established repository preservation, versioning, retention, and data-lifecycle practices before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"This limitation does not undermine the closed-book structural or safety judgment; it limits only novelty conclusions."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repair record against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-specific, causally coherent, falsifiable, and safely bounded. Its main unresolved boundary is external evidence concerning novelty and real-world effect magnitude."}