{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__performing_arts_theatre","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"9e948a6863ec5200281e84274f64cc334a221e885b311e160ae9b51f117b173c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Theatre production artifact sprawl, wrong-version use, and risky cleanup are independently recognizable operational problems without reliance on the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive artifacts, ambiguous authority, differentiated disposition, dependency checks, preservation exceptions, and bounded active workspaces correspond closely to the accumulated-layer structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, visible authority states, governed disposition, reversible removal, and restore validation plausibly act on wrong-version selection, search burden, and memory loss."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, theatre-specific, and internally coherent; selected mechanisms have distinct roles, while unsuitable eviction, rotation, and fixed-expiry mechanisms are rejected with sound reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and causal claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no study, prevalence estimate, or legal mandate is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed accumulation problem exists, while the intervention falsifier separately compares lifecycle governance with a centralized-show-bible rival using observable benefits and harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is distributed among operational governors and protected-material owners; the initial trial is consent-based and reversible, hard deletion and hold overrides are excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions are provided."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal stack, stale-authority hazard, differentiated lifecycle states, dependency protection, exceptions, reversibility, and boundedness."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Scripts, prompt books, cue stacks, rehearsal media, rights, safeguarding, remounting, creative plurality, and theatre governance are treated with domain-specific care."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention targets visibility, authority, dependency, and recoverability mechanisms directly, although its operational effects remain prospective."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete theatre realization, and load-bearing mechanisms form a consistent end-to-end lifecycle."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate confronts creative plurality, embodied knowledge, informal channels, rights conflicts, archival failure, and scoring bias, though pilot evidence is still absent."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It advances beyond ordinary version control by treating authority, retention, preservation, reversible disposition, and tested restoration as one governance problem."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded shadow trial, comparator, observable outcomes, harm thresholds, restore drills, and rollback are specified, but measurement definitions need field calibration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible and authority-bounded trial offers credible operational benefit with contained downside, while access, workload, and historical-erasure risks remain material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing theatre records, archive, or production-management practice."}},"weighted_total":82.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to established theatre production-management and archival practice is unresolved.","repair":"During subsequent research, compare the integrated lifecycle design with current prompt-book governance, digital production archives, records schedules, and theatre collection workflows before making a novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"This does not undermine the structural transfer or pilotability; it limits only claims of originality and prior-art differentiation."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is an unusually complete and domain-sensitive transfer: it identifies an independent theatre problem, preserves the source structure, translates the lifecycle components coherently, supplies a plausible causal chain and comparator, separates problem and intervention falsification, and establishes reversible, distributed authority. Its principal evidence limitation is the disclosed absence of prior-art research, which constrains novelty claims but does not invalidate the bounded hypothesis or safe pilot."}