{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__medicine_healthcare","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"403a79748d768d4f2c3d0322fc804e12ff19d9bd170ef1d46d3c325ce9a9239d","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The clinical-content lifecycle problem is recognizable independently of the source archetype through stale selectable guidance, ambiguous version authority, and reconstruction risk."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive clinical-content versions, lifecycle states, retention exceptions, dependency checks, archival paths, and bounded removal correspond directly to the accumulated-layer structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Gating clinical activation by lifecycle state plausibly prevents superseded artifacts from guiding care while preserving governed historical access; empirical effect size remains appropriately unclaimed."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, adaptations preserve clinical authority distinctions, and selected mechanisms form a coherent detection, review, deactivation, preservation, and verification system."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, benefit, and novelty are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or unsearched; the proposal does not present unsupported effectiveness claims as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the lifecycle failure exists, while the intervention falsifier separately compares governance performance and detects dependency, classification, or restoration failures."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Clinical validation, retention, holds, and destruction remain with designated authorities; the shadow pilot excludes production activation and permanent deletion and includes explicit halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the defining temporal stack, stale-authority hazard, differentiated disposition paths, dependency protection, exceptions, auditability, and revalidation loop."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects clinical validity, rare-use content, patient safety, records obligations, privacy, historical reconstruction, and divided institutional authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from inventory and staleness detection through governed deactivation to reduced exposure is credible, but detection accuracy and workflow effects require prospective testing."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every supplied component receives a domain realization, and peripheral storage mechanisms are subordinated to clinical authority rather than treated as decision makers."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses the strongest null, the failure of age and access as validity proxies, hidden dependencies, restore failure, sensitive metadata, and review fatigue."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It usefully separates authority to guide current care from obligations to retain historical content, converting cleanup into governed activation-state management."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded shadow pilot, comparator, restoration exercise, harm triggers, and rollback are executable, although success thresholds and adjudication procedures for stale-candidate accuracy need greater prespecification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The initial step can reveal lifecycle defects without altering patient-facing content or destroying records, while explicit blocks constrain the major clinical and compliance hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot does not fully specify the reference standard or adjudication process for deciding whether a stale candidate is correctly classified.","repair":"Before execution, define blinded clinical-governance adjudication, disagreement resolution, denominators, and acceptance thresholds for candidate accuracy and disposition latency.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a testable design but provides no empirical operating characteristics for the proposed detectors."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No prior-art evidence supports distinctiveness from existing clinical-content governance and EHR lifecycle systems.","repair":"Conduct a scoped search of clinical decision-support governance standards, vendor capabilities, safety literature, and lifecycle-management implementations before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate accurately labels prior-art status as unsearched and should remain silent on novelty until research is completed."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered repairs to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates through a strong structural translation, disciplined separation of clinical authority from retention, coherent safety mechanisms, distinct falsifiers, and a reversible pilot. Its principal unresolved boundary is novelty, with additional operational prespecification desirable before empirical evaluation."}