{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__statistics_experimental_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"162f241ad3819d7b1cbf5819ced8510e62631073d9a25976a12f2ef0489d824f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The domain problem is independently recognizable as experimental-artifact version sprawl that can corrupt analysis choices while preservation duties prevent indiscriminate cleanup."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive study artifacts, stale operational authority, retention tension, lifecycle states, dependency checks, exceptions, reversible disposition, and reconstruction paths correspond directly to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Identity resolution, authoritative supersession labels, gated discovery, retention controls, and dependency-safe disposition plausibly reduce obsolete-version selection while preserving evidentiary reconstruction; the bounded comparison can test this chain."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain-specific realization, and the selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, testing, and safety roles without unsafe reliance on age alone."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate presents the transfer as a hypothesis, distinguishes inference from hypothesis, makes no unsupported effectiveness claim, and explicitly marks prior-art status as unsearched."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers specify observable wrong-version use, workflow burden, required-artifact misses, and reconstruction failures against a defined baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial test is read-only and reversible, accountable authorities and affected parties are named, disputed or unresolved status halts action, and deletion or hold overrides are excluded."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full accumulation, staleness, retention, dependency, exception, reversible-disposition, and audit structure of the archetype."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The realization is specific to experimental governance, including protocols, estimands, analysis plans, registrations, code, data cuts, prespecification evidence, and reproducibility."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed controls have a credible path to reducing wrong-version use, but the magnitude and prevalence of that effect remain empirical hypotheses for the bounded test."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and avoids category errors such as equating chronological age with scientific or evidentiary invalidity."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses the strongest analogy break, identifies incomplete dependency visibility as a failure condition, distinguishes a strong rival, and supplies symmetric falsifiers and concrete risks."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes artifact sprawl from a storage or naming problem into governance of operational authority across an evidentiary lifecycle."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The read-only pilot has observable retrieval and review outcomes, a comparator, simulated safety checks, halt conditions, and a reversible rollback path."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"Potential inference and audit benefits are material while the authorized first step avoids destructive changes and explicitly bounds legal, ethical, privacy, and dependency risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"No prior-art search or comparative novelty evidence is supplied, and the candidate correctly leaves that status unresolved."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing trial-document governance, records-management, and reproducible-research systems is unestablished.","repair":"During deep research, compare the integrated lifecycle-state and gated-discovery intervention with existing artifact registries, version-control practices, records schedules, and regulated study-document systems.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation supports structural quality and testability but cannot establish originality or prior-art distance."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is an independent, domain-faithful transfer with complete component translation, a coherent causal chain, strong falsification, and conservative authority controls. Its only material evidence gap concerns novelty, which is explicitly bounded and does not undermine the proposed pilot."}