{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__tech_ethics_ai_governance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"db10c4da71b7dc417222d906a1f66347d41a47590b9982f7ab28591bcc53ccdc","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The accumulation of stale governance artifacts is an independently recognizable AI-governance problem with concrete actors, objects, harms, and affected objectives."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Successive governance artifacts correspond closely to deposited layers, including differential retention value, stale active authority, dependency-sensitive retirement, archival, and preserved reconstruction paths."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Explicit lifecycle states, review triggers, supersession, retention rules, and dependency gates directly target the mechanisms that preserve obsolete authority or enable unsafe deletion."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, while mechanism selections preserve their original functions, reject unsuitable popularity-based or blind generational rules, and distinguish detection, authority, disposition, and recovery."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence and effects are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, structural claims are labeled as inference, and the candidate does not present unsearched novelty or pilot outcomes as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether stale-authority accumulation exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether lifecycle gating improves applicability judgments without introducing protected-record, control, or restoration failures."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to accountable governance and specialist stakeholders; the initial pilot is read-only, destructive actions are excluded, scoped vetoes and holds are preserved, and halt and rollback conditions protect affected-party rights."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's temporal accumulation, differentiated lifecycle states, stale-layer hazard, retention tension, dependency checks, reversible disposition, archival recovery, and bounded-stack objective."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation respects the normative authority, legal duties, evidentiary needs, appeal rights, interpretive context, and stakeholder plurality specific to AI governance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and directly linked to the diagnosed failure modes, but its prevalence assumptions and comparative effects remain empirically untested."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every supplied component receives a concrete governance realization, with especially strong distinctions among current authority, reference status, preservation, quarantine, destruction, and restoration."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states strong counterevidence, an important analogy boundary, observable failure conditions, separate falsifiers, and risks that could reverse the intervention's value."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Lifecycle management usefully reframes policy sprawl as a governed authority-and-evidence stack, exposing expiration, supersession, restoration, and deletion-accountability requirements that ordinary recertification can miss."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded read-only pilot, expert comparison, safety outcomes, halt conditions, and rollback path are specified, though sampling, adjudication procedures, and measurement thresholds need fuller operational definition."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible and authority-bounded design offers substantial oversight benefit with controlled initial exposure, while privacy, access-delay, metadata sensitivity, and permanent-hold risks remain material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty evidence is available in the closed-book packet."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The prevalence of lifecycle defects and the intervention's comparative effect remain hypotheses.","repair":"Predefine the audit sample, blinded applicability task, baseline comparison, safety outcomes, adjudication protocol, and decision thresholds before running the bounded pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a credible test design but no observed audit or pilot results."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"No evidence supports a novelty claim or establishes distance from existing records-management and model-governance practices.","repair":"Conduct scoped prior-art research comparing the composition against governance artifact registries, exception-expiry workflows, records schedules, policy recertification systems, and archival-control practices.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can assess structural gain but cannot infer novelty from an explicitly unsearched record."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior candidate, prior identifiers, or registered repairs against which improvement could be attributed; neither the problem identifier nor causal-lever identifier is recorded as changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete and domain-faithful translation with a plausible lifecycle-gating causal chain, strong adversarial tests, and unusually careful authority and deletion safeguards. Its principal remaining uncertainties are empirical effectiveness and unsearched novelty, neither of which invalidates the closed-book design judgment."}