{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__nanotechnology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"0169f1fc4466c60a35d2ddd8f9adc8af8e07071655c159177bd6a4b983e7eb12","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies an independently recognizable laboratory problem involving accumulated physical specimens, stale reuse, storage burden, hazardous handling, and preservation of reproducibility evidence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive specimen lots and aliquots function as temporally accumulated layers, and the proposal translates identity, aging, retention, exceptions, archival states, dependencies, and accountable retirement without collapsing the problem into generic storage cleanup."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, condition-sensitive review, dependency and hold gates, reversible quarantine, authorized disposal, and persistent tombstones plausibly interrupt the stated path from unmanaged accumulation to stale use or destructive cleanout."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and preserves mechanism boundaries. Unsafe cache eviction, blind rotation, and self-executing destruction are rejected, while scoring remains advisory and disposal remains separately gated."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, aging behavior, and performance are explicitly bounded as hypotheses; prior art is marked unsearched; counterevidence and the physical limits of archival analogy are stated without fabricated support."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the accumulation problem exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests comparative operational benefit and harm against the baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among specimen owners, custodians, safety personnel, and hold owners. The initial pilot excludes destruction, limits handling, names halt conditions, and preserves rollback for quarantined specimens."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The accumulated-layer lifecycle structure, differentiated dispositions, dependency safeguards, exceptions, bounded active collection, and retained audit memory are all preserved."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects physical nanomaterial identity, condition change, contamination, aggregation, oxidation, destructive characterization, containment, hazardous disposal, and the impossibility of lossless restoration."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed gates and lifecycle transitions plausibly reduce stale use and unsafe cleanouts, but their practical effect depends on resolvable lineage, measurable condition, and reliable repository execution."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete specimen-management realization, including careful adaptations for physical archival, representative aliquots, quarantine, and non-merging of distinct lots."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses analogy failure, missing prevalence evidence, false orphaning, destructive retesting, hazardous retention, handling exposure, accelerated degradation, and governance burden."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes legacy specimens as governed lifecycle states rather than shelf clutter, though disciplined repositories may already embody much of this framing."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded, nondestructive pilot has observable retrieval, stale-use, storage, false-retirement, condition, and safety outcomes, but dependency resolution and condition assessment may be labor intensive."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversible quarantine, vetoes, separated authority, and halt conditions constrain irreversible harm, while handling and prolonged hazardous retention remain meaningful residual risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty of the specimen-lifecycle composition."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-aware, falsifiable, and safety-bounded transfer. Its claims remain appropriately hypothetical, and the only clear evidentiary deficit concerns novelty rather than internal proposal quality."}