{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__organizational_management","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"705de20261cfaab7634f4567398b7fb15824cb08cb3757c8e90bd9ea1c1acc9f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The organizational problem is independently specified through discoverable obsolete guidance, conflicting authority, uncertain dependencies, and measurable work consequences rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive policy artifacts function as accumulated layers, and the proposal preserves the essential lifecycle structure of inventory, status, retention, exceptions, archival, dependency checking, and accountable removal."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Explicit authority states, lifecycle triggers, search demotion, and gated retirement plausibly reduce exposure to obsolete guidance while preserving reconstructable history."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and the selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, testing, and safety roles; rejected mechanisms are excluded for domain-relevant reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prevalence and effects are explicitly untested, and no unsupported external authority or fabricated result is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the existence of the accumulation problem and the added value of lifecycle governance relative to a curated portal, with observable benefit and harm outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among policy owners, records management, and legal or compliance functions; the pilot excludes irreversible deletion and supplies explicit halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal accumulation, stale-active-layer hazard, heterogeneous retention value, dependency risk, differentiated disposition, and bounded-stack objective."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Policy authority, local interpretation, records obligations, owner accountability, employee search behavior, and legal holds are translated credibly into organizational practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from inventory through authority labeling and search demotion to reduced obsolete-guidance use is coherent, though its behavioral effect remains empirically untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component receives a specific organizational realization, with adaptations that preserve function instead of importing storage metaphors literally."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate identifies a strong rival, analogy limits, governance failure modes, and harmful side effects, but informal copies and owner nonresponse could still weaken coverage."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Lifecycle governance reframes policy clutter from a search-quality problem into managed authority, retention, dependency, reversibility, and reconstruction decisions."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot, comparator, halt rules, and outcome categories are workable, but measurement definitions and sampling procedures require further operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible limited pilot offers meaningful decision value with controlled exposure, while classification errors, sensitive inventory, and governance displacement remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty is unsupported because the candidate is closed-book and prior art is unsearched.","repair":"During deep research, compare the full lifecycle composition against records-management, policy-governance, enterprise-search, and knowledge-management practices before claiming distinctiveness.","evidence_boundary":"This does not undermine the closed-book structural judgment; it bounds only novelty and prior-art claims."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot names outcomes without fully defining retrieval events, obsolete-use attribution, unresolved-staleness counting, or comparator sampling.","repair":"Pre-register event definitions, denominators, sampling windows, attribution rules, and restoration acceptance criteria before execution.","evidence_boundary":"The present design is sufficiently falsifiable for selection, but effect estimation would otherwise remain ambiguous."}],"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 passes every reject-first gate and provides a high-fidelity organizational translation with a coherent causal chain, complete component coverage, distinct falsifiers, bounded claims, and reversible authority-aware safeguards. Deep research should focus on prior art and tighter measurement definitions."}