{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__pharmacology_toxicology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"79bff5bb8715c8cf18744b5e4d113010720a448ea4d150f5cddf3f59bd87f158","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable pharmacology problem: therapies can remain active after their current justification becomes uncertain, while unsafe discontinuation and incomplete history impede correction."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Active medication orders function as sequential, authority-bearing deposits; reassessment triggers, lifecycle states, exceptions, archival history, supersession markers, and bounded active status preserve the archetype's defining structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention acts on the proposed causes by resolving medication identity and indication provenance, detecting stale justification, gating changes on physiological dependencies, and making retirement monitored and reversible."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and the selected mechanisms retain distinct roles in detection, authorization, dependency checking, reversible transition, historical preservation, and revalidation. Incompatible automatic-expiry and capacity-eviction mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, benefit, and outcome claims are bounded as inference or hypothesis; prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched; and no citation, quantitative effect, or unsupported claim of demonstrated effectiveness is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether stale or unexplained continuation exists, while the intervention falsifier separately compares lifecycle management with the nearest rival on justification, burden, safety, and patient outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Treatment authority remains with the patient and licensed clinicians. Automation is limited to identification and prioritization, hazardous automatic or abrupt discontinuation is excluded, and explicit monitoring, halt, rescue, and restart conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves accumulation, changing validity, differentiated disposition, dependency protection, exception handling, bounded active state, and reconstructable history with little structural distortion."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects indication-specific benefit, physiological adaptation, withdrawal and rebound risk, fragmented prescribing authority, patient priorities, and the distinction between an inactive order and an enduring medication history."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from improved provenance and stale-therapy detection through supervised deprescribing to reduced avoidable burden is coherent, but comparative effectiveness remains an explicit empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally differentiated, including review triggers, exception ownership, dependency checks, reversible transitions, supersession records, retrieval, and revalidation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses appropriate long-duration polypharmacy, record fragmentation, nonlinear cessation effects, authority fragmentation, monitoring failure, automation bias, inequity, and stale-order resurrection."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating medications as authority-bearing lifecycle states adds persistent governance, reconstructability, and revalidation beyond episodic reconciliation, though it overlaps established deprescribing concepts."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded prospective panel pilot, explicit comparator, observable process outcomes, clinical safety outcomes, and halt criteria make the intervention testable, subject to reliable records and timely follow-up."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The staged, clinician-authorized design offers plausible benefit with substantial safeguards, while withdrawal, disease destabilization, documentation bias, and coordination failures remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The lifecycle composition may be distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty relative to deprescribing programs, medication-management systems, or clinical decision support."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing deprescribing and longitudinal medication-management approaches is unestablished.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art comparison that decomposes the candidate into lifecycle-state governance, indication-age tracking, reversible withdrawal, supersession markers, reconstructable history, and scheduled revalidation, then identify which combination is absent from the nearest implementations.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation supports structural coherence but cannot establish novelty, prevalence, or comparative effectiveness."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle; the problem and causal-lever identifiers have not changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-faithful transfer that turns episodic medication reconciliation into an indication-aware, reversible lifecycle for active therapy while preserving clinical authority and historical reconstruction. Its principal unresolved issue is external evidence of novelty and comparative benefit."}