{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__physics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"35e8f725ab95ff3016e2bad7481e2b9ea092893377b0ebddd7a6a64def23db05","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently meaningful physics workflow problem: obsolete calibration payloads can remain selectable while historical payloads must remain reproducible. The problem can exist or be absent regardless of the lifecycle analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Calibration payloads form identifiable temporal deposits with changing applicability, active-state ambiguity, retention exceptions, dependencies, differentiated dispositions, and reconstruction requirements. The mapping also preserves the crucial distinction between expiry from current use and destruction."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Validity leases, condition-mismatch detection, supersession markers, and selection gates act directly on obsolete default selection. Dependency checks, tiering, quarantine, and restore drills address bounded retention and reproducibility through a coherent downstream chain."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, and the selected mechanisms retain their defining machinery. Incompatible or misleading mechanisms are rejected or restricted, especially age scoring, generational deletion, and fast-tier eviction."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not claim empirical prevalence, effect size, or novelty. Inferential and hypothetical claims are labeled, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and the pilot is framed as a test rather than as confirmed evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the alleged stale-selection and active-stack problem exists, while the intervention falsifier separately compares lifecycle gating with the rival and monitors reconstruction and restoration harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among calibration owners, data stewards, and records or publication authorities. The authorized pilot is shadow-mode and non-destructive, with explicit exclusions, halt conditions, immutable copies, and rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full lifecycle structure: accumulated versions, changing active applicability, explicit state, exceptions, dependency-sensitive disposition, archival, restoration, and bounded active use."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The realization is expressed in physics-specific objects and workflows, including detector conditions, run ranges, reconstruction campaigns, calibration uncertainty, publication reproducibility, and conditions-database selection."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed gates plausibly prevent out-of-validity selection and the archival controls plausibly preserve reconstruction, but detector-condition inference and dependency coverage remain empirical uncertainties for the pilot."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and specific, with adaptations that respect physical validity rather than treating age as evidence of scientific incorrectness."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest analogy break, states conditions under which the problem disappears, identifies metadata and hidden-dependency failure modes, and supplies separate outcome-based falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The lifecycle framing usefully joins calibration selection, reproducibility, storage tiering, deletion authority, and restoration testing, though several constituent practices are already natural to conditions-data governance."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded shadow pilot specifies observables, a rival, sampling, restoration checks, enforcement limits, halt criteria, and reversible handling without requiring destructive deployment."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The first step could expose consequential calibration misuse and active-stack burden while limiting downside through warnings, archived copies, authority checks, quarantine, and disabled hard deletion."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal establishes no novelty relative to existing conditions-database validity, interval-of-validity, provenance, and reproducibility practices.","repair":"During deep research, compare the integrated lifecycle composition with deployed conditions-data systems and identify which claimed contribution, if any, is absent from established practice.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation can judge structural quality and test design but cannot establish prior art, deployment prevalence, or empirical effect."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no predecessor, and neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier is recorded as changed. The remaining novelty-evidence weakness is not attributable to a conceptual or operational revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally coherent, reversible, and falsifiable, with empirical uncertainty appropriately assigned to a bounded pilot. Novelty remains wholly unestablished and belongs in subsequent research."}