{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__religious_studies_theology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"5d3c347667123dd75b2e9a726e6fe37901f24c3a72ff801bac5ce01ffd5e1426","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently recognizable as obsolete institutional guidance remaining discoverable as current, without depending on the source analogy for its significance."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive corpus versions, stale authority signals, preservation constraints, lifecycle states, exceptions, and bounded disposition closely correspond to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Explicit status metadata, successor links, governed search presentation, and periodic review directly target the pathway by which superseded guidance is mistaken for current guidance."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component translation is complete and domain-specific, while incompatible age-only, capacity-only, and blind-expiration mechanisms are explicitly rejected. Selected mechanisms retain distinct functions and safeguards."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prevalence and outcome claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and the proposal seeks prospective evidence rather than asserting unsupported effects."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed confusion exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle labeling improves retrieval without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to institutional document status rather than theological truth; plural and affected-party review is recognized, destructive actions are excluded, and the pilot is reversible."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal maps the temporal stack, stale-active-layer problem, differentiated lifecycle states, dependency protection, exception governance, and preservation-versus-removal tension with high fidelity."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The design respects plural authority, contested interpretation, historical importance, archival ethics, institutional limits, and the distinction between documentary status and theological truth."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Status banners, successor links, and search presentation plausibly improve current-document selection, but the prevalence of confusion and the effect size remain untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete corpus-level realization, with thoughtful adaptations where chronological decay or storage terminology could otherwise distort the domain."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses plural authority, minoritized histories, discoverability loss, sensitive records, biased metadata, dependency breakage, and archival failure."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes the issue from deleting old religious texts to governing the current applicability status of institutional documents while preserving interpretive history."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded read-only pilot specifies a comparator, retrieval outcomes, dispute and dependency measures, curator burden, halt conditions, and rollback."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The initial intervention is reversible and non-destructive, with narrow authority, preservation review, explicit exclusions, and multiple harm-sensitive outcomes."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing archival, records-management, or institutional publishing practices."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The empirical prevalence of current-status retrieval errors is unknown.","repair":"Use the proposed inventory and retrieval study to establish baseline error patterns across document classes and authority structures before broader deployment.","evidence_boundary":"The present packet supports structural plausibility only and does not establish real-world frequency or magnitude."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing archival and institutional corpus-governance practice is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct prior-art research covering archival description, records retention, versioned publishing, religious-institution repositories, and contested-authority metadata models.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly reports its prior-art status as unsearched, so no novelty inference is warranted."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered repairs or prior revision to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates and presents a strong, reversible transfer centered on documentary applicability rather than theological adjudication. Deep research should validate prevalence, effects, and prior art."}