{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__security_intelligence","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"63d5a2e05b72d603a9b002f6b706dbd9a6494897e4cf56229989e61f62b72f61","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently observable security-intelligence problem involving stale-active artifacts, unsafe retention defaults, and preservation tension rather than merely restating the intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Temporally deposited intelligence artifacts, changing validity, active-by-default visibility, differentiated disposition, preservation exceptions, and reconstruction safeguards closely correspond to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Lifecycle-state gating directly changes whether expired or superseded artifacts remain available as current intelligence, while controlled archival preserves legitimate historical uses."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, and the selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, and safety roles with unsuitable mechanisms explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, the proposal does not invent prevalence or effect estimates, and unresolved local evidence is explicitly bounded."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether stale-active intelligence is consequential or already governed, while the intervention falsifier separately tests lifecycle gating against retrieval benefit and operational harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among repository, records, legal, oversight, source-protection, and product owners; the initial pilot is non-destructive and includes explicit holds, halt conditions, and rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's accumulated-layer structure, retention-versus-deletion tension, lifecycle states, exception handling, reversibility, and bounded-stack objective."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation reflects intelligence-specific artifacts, provenance, source protection, evidentiary obligations, analytic currency, downstream feeds, and oversight authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Withdrawing superseded artifacts from current-facing retrieval should reduce stale use, but the magnitude depends on propagation, metadata completeness, and actual consumer behavior."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every supplied component receives a coherent security-intelligence realization, including dependency tracing, supersession markers, restoration, holds, compaction, and staleness detection."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate recognizes manipulable staleness signals, biased exceptions, metadata leakage, downstream resurrection, and non-monotonic relevance, though adversarial controls remain partly unspecified."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal advances beyond search ranking by treating currency and retention as governed lifecycle states while preserving provenance and reconstruction."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The shadow pilot is bounded, reversible, measurable, and operationally credible, but concrete sampling rules and tolerances still require local specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The initial test offers useful diagnostic value with limited exposure, while later deployment retains meaningful risks from premature withdrawal, sensitive archives, and incomplete dependencies."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The classification explicitly reports unsearched prior art, so originality beyond a plausible domain synthesis is not established."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The intervention falsifier refers to a predeclared tolerance without defining the retrieval, dependency, and restoration thresholds.","repair":"Before execution, register measurable success and halt thresholds, the sampling frame, and evaluation ownership for the bounded pilot.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values require repository-specific baseline data and stakeholder authority and cannot be inferred from the closed-book packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Prior-art novelty remains unestablished.","repair":"Conduct a scoped search of intelligence records management, indicator lifecycle, watchlist governance, and archival-control practices before making a novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly labels prior-art status as unsearched; no novelty conclusion is supportable from the supplied material alone."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repairs against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, safe, and testable domain transfer whose lifecycle-state intervention fits the archetype and the intelligence domain. Empirical effect size and novelty remain open research questions, but they are appropriately bounded and do not invalidate the proposed shadow pilot."}