{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__sport_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"4e847a19aaae4ff4b972cd77b9106b9fd5960b8c0625d14d06f78212cc5c5f00","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The domain problem is independently observable: accumulated athlete artifacts can retain ambiguous authority, create privacy and maintenance burdens, and complicate reconstruction regardless of the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the essential structure of sequential deposits, changing value and authority, explicit lifecycle states, exception handling, dependency-aware disposition, archival, and accountable deletion."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, semantic-staleness detection, authority labeling, and governed demotion directly target obsolete-artifact selection; dependency checks and restore tests protect reconstruction. The causal effect remains explicitly testable rather than asserted."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain-specific realizations, load-bearing mechanisms are distinguished from supporting safeguards, and unsuitable age-, access-, or position-driven mechanisms are rejected with coherent reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical benefit and transferred claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, limitations are explicit, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported effectiveness or novelty claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem audit can independently show that stale-layer exposure is negligible, while the intervention comparison can separately show no benefit or unacceptable retrieval, privacy, reconstruction, or access harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is divided among data controllers, clinical custodians, research custodians, and delegated coaching roles. The pilot excludes sensitive deletion and decision automation, uses reversible actions, and defines concrete halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate closely instantiates accumulated-layer lifecycle governance rather than physiological decay, generic storage cleanup, or simple version preservation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects the distinct operational, clinical, research, consent, and longitudinal meanings of sport-science artifacts."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The authority gate and visible demotion plausibly reduce erroneous reuse, but realized benefit depends on accurate identity resolution, complete context, and staff response to flags."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, differentiated, and adapted without collapsing operational authority, historical value, sensitivity, and deletion safety into a single age signal."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal addresses the strongest analogy break, hidden dependencies, competing authority, archive failure, privacy conflict, and the possibility that measurement or judgment is the actual cause."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes the issue from keeping or deleting old files to governing which accumulated artifacts retain current decision authority while preserving justified memory."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded reversible pilot specifies comparison outcomes, excluded actions, observable failure conditions, and rollback triggers."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"Read-only labels and reversible archival offer meaningful prospective benefit with tightly limited initial exposure and explicit protection for high-consequence records."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book novelty evidence is available."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal provides no evidence that equivalent athlete-record lifecycle and authority systems are absent from existing practice or products.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art and implementation review before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The current record supports structural quality and testability only; it does not establish originality."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposed causal benefit remains dependent on staff compliance and the accuracy of semantic-staleness detection.","repair":"During the pilot, separately measure flag precision, label adherence, superseded-artifact selection, reconciliation burden, and retrieval failures.","evidence_boundary":"The causal chain is plausible but remains a hypothesis pending prospective comparison."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-aware, causally testable, operationally bounded, and safety-conscious. Its principal unresolved weakness is the disclosed absence of novelty evidence, which does not undermine the transfer's internal quality."}