{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__military_strategic_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"6170debf22f5f2428b6527f29c478cf78101c1b7ce77e4222eb38da8b900b571","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independent military repository-governance problem involving obsolete guidance, authoritative status, retention, and reconstruction rather than merely restating the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Sequential artifacts, changing validity, stale-authority risk, retention exceptions, reversible disposition, and reconstruction safeguards correspond directly to the accumulated-layer structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever acts on the stated hazard by making validity and lifecycle state explicit, separating noncurrent material from authoritative discovery, and gating retirement on policy, holds, and dependencies."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All lifecycle components receive coherent domain realizations, load-bearing mechanisms have defined counterfactual roles, and unsuitable recency-based or generation-blind mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effect size, and novelty are explicitly bounded as unestablished; factual-looking transfer claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, with no fabricated authority or citation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether harmful sprawl exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle governance improves selection, search, dependency detection, and restoration outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided appropriately among command and specialist mandates, the initial test is shadow-only and excludes live guidance changes, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect operational, legal, security, and coalition interests."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal accumulation, changing value, bounded-stack tension, exception handling, dependency protection, differentiated disposition, and auditability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects enduring command authority, explicit rescission, classification, coalition dependencies, records mandates, operational validity, and the consequences of stale guidance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The pathway from authoritative identity and staleness detection through guarded retirement to reduced mistaken selection is credible, though incomplete dependency visibility and uncertain baseline prevalence remain material constraints."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and functionally specific, with adaptations that preserve each component's lifecycle role rather than relying on military terminology alone."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses the strongest rival explanation, the binding-old-directive analogy break, incomplete graphs, metadata exposure, de facto authority drift, restore failure, and labor displacement."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes repository sprawl as validity-state and lifecycle governance rather than simple storage cleanup, while remaining adjacent to established records and publication-control practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded shadow pilot, expert adjudication, baseline comparison, observable error modes, and rollback are actionable, but measurement definitions and acceptance thresholds still require preregistration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A non-mutating pilot offers meaningful learning with limited immediate operational risk, while eventual deployment would retain serious deletion, classification, dependency, and authority hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing military publication, records-management, knowledge-management, and archival controls is not established."}},"weighted_total":85.0,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Novelty and differentiation from existing command-publication, records-management, archival, and knowledge-management systems remain unknown.","repair":"Conduct bounded prior-art and doctrine research, then identify which claimed combination or causal effect is absent from established practice.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly classifies prior-art status as unsearched and supplies no external evidence."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Pilot outcomes are named but their measurement rules and acceptance boundaries are not operationally fixed.","repair":"Preregister artifact sampling, expert-adjudication procedures, metric definitions, authority-set tolerances, and the comparison method before pilot execution.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate proposes measurable outcomes and a preset tolerance but does not define the corresponding measurement protocol."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-faithful, causally credible, falsifiable, and safely bounded transfer. Its principal unresolved issue is evidentiary rather than structural: novelty and distinction from existing military governance practice require external research."}