{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__rhetoric","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2f152139c173f252816c89324a2f2995d4eb3de3468b9c868ead1ad12d2338dc","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The domain problem is independently recognizable: rhetorical repositories retain superseded, context-bound assets that remain reusable and authoritative-looking, while indiscriminate removal threatens provenance and accountability."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal deposits, declining or context-dependent usefulness, differentiated lifecycle states, exception handling, dependency protection, reversible cleanup, and bounded active stack."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Changing authority and retrieval states plausibly interrupts stale reuse by removing obsolete assets from ordinary discovery while retaining governed reconstruction paths; the read-only pilot can test this against ordinary practice."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a coherent domain realization, and selected mechanisms retain their functional roles. Cache eviction and blind rotation are explicitly rejected where their operating assumptions do not fit rhetoric."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate makes no unsupported prevalence or effect claim, labels transferred propositions as hypotheses or inferences, declares prior art unsearched, and confines causal confidence to a falsifiable pilot."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether stale repository assets contribute to drafting failures, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle governance improves retrieval and review without unacceptable reconstruction or omission failures."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among owners, editorial governance, and records or legal staff; automated scores lack final authority; the initial test is read-only; exclusions, halt conditions, and rollback preserve originals and protect contested or held material."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates accumulated layers, active-authority decay, lifecycle classification, exceptions, dependency checks, archival pathways, and accountable removal."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Validity is correctly treated as audience-, occasion-, fact-, and institutional-position-dependent rather than monotonically age-dependent, preserving the distinctive judgment demands of rhetoric."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed visibility and authority transitions have a clear path to reducing stale reuse, but their practical effect remains an explicitly unvalidated hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, and functionally translated, including review effort as the principal scarce resource and authority states as the analogue of access tiers."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies a strong alternative diagnosis, a genuine analogy break, bypass and representation failures, institutional-history risks, bias risks, and distinct falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer reframes message maintenance from handbook curation or fact-checking alone into governance of active authority, historical memory, dependencies, and reversible disposition."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded read-only pilot has defined objects, reviewers, comparison outcomes, halt criteria, and rollback without destructive or public-facing action."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot offers useful evidence at limited immediate risk, although later demotion, restricted archives, and destruction could concentrate interpretive authority or obscure accountability."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty or separation from existing content-governance and records-management practice."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Originality and prior-art separation remain unknown because the transfer is explicitly unsearched.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, compare the proposal with established message-governance, content-lifecycle, digital-asset-management, records-retention, and knowledge-base deprecation practices.","evidence_boundary":"This uncertainty limits novelty claims but does not undermine the closed-book structural fit or the safety of the proposed pilot."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-faithful transfer with a complete lifecycle mapping, defensible causal chain, distinct falsifiers, and unusually careful authority and rollback controls. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain open research questions, but neither blocks the bounded read-only test."}