{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__neuroscience","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"84f6d4d671d9a367bd3109cc9034fccff982e6e7e9012d2e1a3ae01ddc6aa666","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable neuroscience data-governance problem involving accumulated recording and derivative versions, stale authority signals, storage burden, and reproducibility risk."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Sequential deposits, differentiated retention value, stale active layers, dependency-sensitive removal, archival alternatives, exceptions, and bounded-stack governance correspond directly to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, authority labeling, dependency gates, tiering, quarantine, restoration testing, and periodic revalidation plausibly act on the stated discovery, storage, and recoverability outcomes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms retain their defining operations, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with the neural-data substrate."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical benefits and domain realizations are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, evidence maturity and prior-art uncertainty are disclosed, and no unsupported effect claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether harmful accumulation exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle actions improve outcomes without restoration, integrity, lineage, or governance failure."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority, veto holders, excluded destructive actions, a read-only initial pilot, halt conditions, and rollback protections appropriately constrain participant-sensitive and irreproducible data handling."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full lifecycle-governance structure, including differentiated disposition, dependencies, exceptions, boundedness, auditability, and recovery."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The objects, actors, lineage risks, consent constraints, and reproducibility concerns are credible for neuroscience research, though much of the intervention remains research-data governance rather than neuroscience-specific scientific machinery."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain connects lifecycle visibility and gating to reduced stale-version use and active-storage burden while protecting reconstruction, but outcome effects remain untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and each realization is operationally interpretable in longitudinal neural-data management."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonmonotonic scientific value, irreproducible raw signals, invisible dependencies, archive failure, governance conflicts, metadata leakage, and unsafe compaction."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It reframes indiscriminate retention versus deletion as state-gated, reversible retirement with differentiated authority and access states, adding more than cataloging alone."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded read-only pilot, simulated eligibility, sampled restoration, explicit outcome observations, halt triggers, and reversible demotion make the proposal readily testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The staged design offers meaningful discovery and storage benefits with strong safeguards, while residual risks remain around hidden dependencies, governance conflicts, and future scientific value."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and no comparative evidence establishes novelty of the assembled intervention."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"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-credible, causally coherent, falsifiable, and safety-bounded transfer suitable for deeper research; its principal unresolved weakness is the absence of novelty evidence."}