{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__philosophy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"60d2a0070e00617dc29d53d20a4022ee251e0992d52abdb0004d71884aae331d","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The ambiguity of dialectical status is independently observable in versioned philosophical debates and is not defined solely by the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive argument formulations form identifiable temporal deposits whose active standing changes while genealogy and dependencies still require preservation."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, explicit status markers, dependency checks, and discovery tiering plausibly reduce obsolete-position misattribution without erasing the historical record."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is comprehensive, and selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, testing, and safety roles; inappropriate age-, access-, and sequence-based mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported citation or asserted result is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed burden exists, while the intervention falsifier separately compares status governance with ordinary scholarship and includes adverse outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to discovery status, plural review and appeal are supported, original sources cannot be destroyed, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect contested interpretations."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full lifecycle structure: temporal accumulation, changed active standing, differentiated disposition, dependency protection, recoverability, exceptions, and revalidation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It respects philosophical contestability by separating dialectical status and discoverability from truth, validity, popularity, and historical worth."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed markers and visibility controls directly address misattribution, though expert disagreement and interpretive dependencies may limit consistent classification."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every source component receives a recognizable domain realization, with careful adaptations for editorial attention, argumentative dependency, and historical reconstruction."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate confronts false closure, editorial capture, minority suppression, detector bias, and irreducibly interpretive dependencies with meaningful safeguards and falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Treating debate maintenance as reversible lifecycle governance yields a useful distinction between inactive discovery status and preserved argumentative genealogy."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded comparative pilot has observable outcomes, independent labeling, restoration checks, and rollback, but agreement thresholds and adverse-event tolerances remain unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is reversible and preserves sources, offering plausible search and reconstruction benefits while leaving manageable but significant risks of false closure and editorial authority."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing scholarly editing, argument-mapping, and version-governance practices is unsupported."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal provides no evidence that its combined status-governance design is distinct from existing scholarly editing, argument-mapping, or version-control practices.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison and identify which claimed elements, combinations, or causal uses are genuinely absent from the nearest established practices.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly labels prior-art status as unsearched, so novelty cannot be inferred from internal coherence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and domain-sensitive transfer that governs dialectical status without equating age with invalidity or destroying philosophical sources. Its main unresolved weakness is the absence of prior-art evidence, while the causal proposal itself is bounded, reversible, and testable."}