{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__veterinary_medicine:P3:v0","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__veterinary_medicine","proposal_index":3,"qualification":"DO_NOT_QUALIFY","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific, falsifiable workflow claim: a version-linked gate can restrict migration verdicts to checked certificates, replayable counterexamples, finite-envelope results, or UNRESOLVED, outperforming regression-only review in preventing unsupported equivalence approvals."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"External evidence documents veterinary laboratory errors, heterogeneous LIMS transformations, validation obligations, and the importance of accurate electronic reporting, although the prevalence of equivalence-related migration failures is unmeasured."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"AAVLD-accredited or NAHLN veterinary diagnostic laboratories are identifiable partners, with laboratory directors, clinical pathologists, quality managers, and software engineers providing relevant authority and expertise."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Laboratory access is necessary to validate the report-equivalence contract, observe migration workflow and adopter pull, inspect proprietary plugins and environmental dependencies, and test a representative non-production pipeline pair; public research cannot resolve these questions."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed synthetic experiment is offline, uses no production records or clinical reports, preserves the legacy release path, predefines halt conditions, and requires independent artifact review."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"NO","reason":"The specified first experiment uses toy pipeline pairs and at most 256 synthetic records, so it can decisively test artifact handling and router logic but cannot resolve the central partner-dependent uncertainties about veterinary semantic fidelity, workflow fit, proprietary dependencies, adopter pull, or performance on a representative migration."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No safety or authority gate is materially negative for the offline experiment; the only explicitly uncertain verified gate concerns cost credibility, which alone is not treated as disqualifying."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step specifies pipeline pairs, a finite input envelope, a regression comparator, predefined measures, independent review, success conditions, and explicit falsifiers rather than an open-ended request for more research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"An AAVLD-accredited or NAHLN veterinary diagnostic laboratory planning a non-production software migration, with participation from its laboratory director, veterinary clinical pathologist, quality manager, and pipeline engineers.","required_access":"A representative non-production legacy/new pipeline pair; source or executable access; specimen and report schemas; plugin, reference-data, numeric, and environment specifications; existing validation artifacts; migration workflow observation; and authorized interviews with pathology, quality, and engineering personnel.","bounded_empirical_test":"After the synthetic artifact test, compare the evidence-gated protocol with a time-matched regression-only review on one representative non-production pipeline pair under a fixed replayable environment and a pathologist-approved report projection, without permitting any production release.","success_condition":"The gate preserves contract and bound labels, never converts timeout or UNRESOLVED into approval, reproduces planted or discovered mismatches, obtains independent reviewer agreement, and demonstrates fewer unsupported equivalence approvals than the comparator within a predeclared labor, compute, and elapsed-time budget.","falsification_condition":"The intervention is falsified if it misclassifies a known case, verifies a materially incomplete report relation, cannot replay a counterexample, loses finite bounds, lets UNRESOLVED authorize release, or provides no measurable advantage over time-matched regression review.","rationale":"The opportunity has a differentiated claim, credible problem signal, identifiable partners, and genuine need for laboratory access. It does not qualify for the narrow empirical-partner lane because the sealed bounded first experiment is synthetic and therefore not decisive about the principal uncertainties that require a partner. A later representative-laboratory test is suggested, but it is not the proposal's fully specified immediate empirical design."}