{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__veterinary_medicine","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"347ed44d2321942a13dddeb30aa20c149118fbed1b68d86b205b44514358fd68","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The veterinary-record problem is independently recognizable as stale clinical state accumulating within longitudinal records; it does not depend on the source analogy for its existence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Sequential record deposits, ambiguous currentness, retention tension, dependencies, lifecycle states, exceptions, reversible disposition, and auditability correspond closely to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention acts on the stated failure through visible lifecycle state, clinician adjudication, retention and dependency gates, governed disposition, and restoration checks."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a coherent domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms are distinguished from supporting safeguards, and unsafe cache, rotation, and blind-expiry mechanisms are rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical maturity and prior-art status are explicitly bounded, uncertain domain claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, and no prevalence or effect claim is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate separately specifies evidence that would negate the underlying problem and evidence that would negate the intervention, with observable comparison outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Clinical confirmation, policy approval, destructive authority, protected-record overrides, silent-mode testing, halt conditions, and rollback responsibilities are explicitly bounded."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the full lifecycle-governance structure, including differentiated disposition, dependency protection, exceptions, reversibility, and surviving deletion evidence."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The actors, record objects, clinical-currentness decisions, continuity concerns, and authority boundaries are veterinary-specific and credible, although prevalence and governing requirements remain unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The detection-to-adjudication-to-gated-disposition chain directly addresses stale active visibility, but its effectiveness and workflow burden remain empirical questions."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All supplied components receive concrete veterinary-record realizations, and the mechanism dispositions preserve their distinct functions and limitations."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states strong counterevidence, a precise analogy break, operational failure conditions, separate falsifiers, and several credible harm pathways."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It reframes reconciliation burden as lifecycle-state governance while retaining clinician judgment and evidentiary history, yielding a more systematic intervention than periodic cleanup alone."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The silent retrospective pilot identifies scope, adjudicators, comparison measures, prohibited mutations, halt conditions, and rollback behavior."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A read-only pilot offers useful information at limited immediate risk, while later deployment would require safeguards against concealment, bias, retrieval delay, fatigue, and identity errors."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The frequency and clinical impact of ambiguous active layers in veterinary records are not established.","repair":"Use blinded baseline chart review to estimate ambiguity, reconciliation burden, disagreement, and current-state interpretation errors before deployment.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural plausibility and a bounded test design, not prevalence or clinical benefit."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Applicable retention, destruction, consent, and investigation requirements are unspecified and may vary by jurisdiction and record class.","repair":"Validate the retention matrix and quarantine rules with authorized veterinary-records and legal personnel for the pilot setting.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate defines authority roles and overrides but does not establish governing requirements."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No prior-art evidence distinguishes the proposal from existing veterinary record reconciliation or lifecycle-management systems.","repair":"Conduct a targeted prior-art review before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty is explicitly unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever revision and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, causally coherent, falsifiable, and appropriately bounded for a silent veterinary-record pilot. Its principal unresolved issue is external evidence concerning prevalence, governing requirements, effectiveness, and novelty rather than a defect in the proposed transfer."}