>Generally though I challenge you to define “creative” in a way that is precise enough to measure and isn’t self referential or refer to concepts ill defined.

While I have no hope for a rigorous definition (I don't think it's possible), there are two very distinct kinds of creativity:

1. Result is sufficiently novel for the system itself, i.e. it never seen it previously. This kind is too trivial to even talk about.

2. Result is novel for the side observer. This kind of creativity is meaningless because it depends on at least one unknown (side observer).