{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__sociology_anthropology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"85bbb9bc5889caff902c62a4ba2e3b16212a29aeea1917576907a7071f26e4c8","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The institutional rule-sedimentation problem is independently specified through actors, observable conditions, consequences, and an objective that does not depend on the source analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive rules form identifiable temporal deposits, obsolete layers retain apparent authority, preservation constraints impede cleanup, and explicit lifecycle states bound the active stack while retaining reconstructable history."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention targets unclear status, dependencies, disposition authority, and visibility through inventory, review triggers, dependency gates, tiering, quarantine, and durable withdrawal markers."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms have distinct functions, unsafe mechanical mechanisms are rejected, and the causal chain preserves deliberative authority rather than treating rules as inert records."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects and prevalence are explicitly unverified, mappings are labeled as inference or hypothesis, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported empirical authority is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes sedimentation from discretion, scarcity, and unequal enforcement, while the intervention falsifier separately tests effects on obsolete citation, inconsistency, and reliance harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Decision authority, affected-party notice and contestation, legal and records holds, reversible piloting, excluded actions, halt conditions, and rollback procedures are explicitly bounded."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves temporal accumulation, stale active authority, differentiated retention, dependency-sensitive disposition, archival alternatives, and reconstructability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It treats institutional rules as contested exercises of authority shaped by reliance, pluralism, interpretation, unequal power, and historical memory rather than as neutral files."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanisms plausibly reduce obsolete-rule visibility and ad hoc disposition, but effects on enforcement consistency and reliance harms remain empirically untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and internally consistent, with appropriate adaptation of technical lifecycle concepts into governance practices."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts deliberate pluralism, centralization risk, archival inaccessibility, political classification, alternative explanations, and analogy limits."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Lifecycle governance turns diffuse policy accretion into inspectable states, dependencies, exceptions, and reversible disposition decisions without reducing the issue to document cleanup."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded pilot, baseline, observable register, restoration exercise, reversible state changes, and outcome falsifier support testing, though measurement protocols and decision thresholds need operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversibility, contestation, holds, dependency checks, and prohibitions substantially constrain harm, while centralization and inaccessible archiving remain meaningful residual risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The application may be distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no comparative novelty evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty is not established against institutional policy review, records governance, or administrative simplification practice.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison and state which combined causal features, if any, are absent from established approaches.","evidence_boundary":"This is a novelty limitation only; it does not undermine the closed-book structural evaluation."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot names outcomes but does not fully operationalize observation windows, coding rules, comparison logic, or acceptable reliance-harm boundaries.","repair":"Predefine measures for obsolete-rule citation, decision inconsistency, contest volume, service disruption, restoration success, and reliance harm, including baseline comparison and halt thresholds.","evidence_boundary":"The proposal is testable in principle, but empirical effectiveness remains a hypothesis."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, independently specified translation that preserves the archetype while respecting contested authority, reliance interests, and institutional memory. Its principal limitations concern untested effects, incomplete measurement detail, and absent novelty research rather than structural fit or safety."}