{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__material_culture_museum_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"1e043c49b0f661e59daa5311e8293c1703d6f6cfb99b5ac2e9cc77015ace16a2","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The museum problem is independently recognizable: obsolete or contested interpretive records can retain current authority while preservation and accountability constrain removal."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive interpretive versions correspond coherently to accumulated temporal layers, with explicit mappings for identity, age, authority state, exceptions, dependencies, disposition, and reconstruction."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, validated staleness review, retention constraints, supersession marking, and access-state changes plausibly act on stale-as-current retrieval rather than merely preserving more history."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain translation, load-bearing mechanisms form a coherent lifecycle, and unsuitable age-, capacity-, and sequence-driven mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects and prevalence are not asserted as established facts; uncertain claims are bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no fabricated evidence is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct observable falsifiers, including an audit that can negate the diagnosed backlog and a comparative trial that can fail despite the problem existing."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Irreversible disposition requires multidisciplinary and affected-community authority, the first step is read-only and sandboxed, prohibited actions are explicit, and halt and rollback conditions address exposure, reconstruction, and community harm."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's full lifecycle logic while adapting expiration away from automatic destruction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It treats museum interpretation as contested, relational, evidentiary, culturally sensitive, and governed by scholarly, legal, records, and community obligations."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Foregrounding authoritative versions while retaining marked historical layers should improve interpretation and search, though the behavioral effect remains untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and internally consistent, including restoration, holds, dependency checks, exceptions, and reversible disposition."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses sanitization, presentism, false staleness, inaccessible dependencies, permanent exceptions, and the nonfungibility of interpretive records."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes the challenge from preserving versus deleting records to governing which interpretive layers retain active authority while preserving accountable history."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded read-only trial, blinded authority-identification outcome, staff-time comparison, and reconstruction checks are executable, although operational definitions and tolerances still require protocol specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible trials and shared authority substantially limit risk, but misclassification, inappropriate restriction, cultural exposure, and later disposition remain consequential hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the proposed adaptation is novel."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing museum collections-management, digital-versioning, archival-description, and contested-labeling practices is unsupported.","repair":"Conduct targeted prior-art research and state which lifecycle combination, authority-state design, or evaluation protocol is absent from or materially extends established practice.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly marks prior-art status as unsearched; novelty cannot be inferred from conceptual coherence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair record, no changed problem identifier, and no changed causal-lever identifier."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and offers a structurally complete, domain-sensitive, reversible transfer with distinct problem and intervention falsifiers. Its main unresolved weakness is the absence of prior-art evidence, while causal effects and operating thresholds appropriately remain subjects for empirical testing."}