{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__statistics_experimental_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"negative_space_design","domain_slug":"statistics_experimental_design","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"primary_estimand_buried_by_result_crowding","causal_lever_id":"protected_primary_result_surface","proposal":{"problem":"Experiment reports that give primary, secondary, exploratory, diagnostic, and subgroup results comparable initial visibility can bury the preregistered primary estimand. [HYPOTHESIS] Readers may then base conclusions or continuation decisions on salient exploratory fluctuations rather than the confirmatory result.","actors_substrate":["experiment designers and analysts","scientific reviewers and decision-makers","research participants and populations affected by resulting decisions","multiplicity-rich experiment reports and monitoring dashboards"],"observable_state":"On first inspection, readers cannot reliably identify the primary estimand, its uncertainty, and its decision status; attention shifts among equally prominent charts, subgroup estimates, diagnostics, and exploratory outcomes.","consequence":"Misinterpretation of evidential status, post-hoc emphasis on favorable fluctuations, slower review, and potentially incorrect stop, continue, or adoption decisions.","affected_objective":"Accurate, timely inference from the prespecified estimand without concealing safety, uncertainty, or auditable supporting evidence.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Competing elements obscure intended form","domain_realization":"Confirmatory and exploratory results compete on the same initial reporting surface, obscuring evidential hierarchy.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"Protected absence clarifies what remains","domain_realization":"A bounded primary-result surface excludes nonessential results while framing the primary estimate, uncertainty, and decision rule.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"Absence has an explicit boundary and purpose","domain_realization":"A reporting rule limits the initial surface to prespecified decision-relevant fields while retaining all other results in a labeled, accessible layer.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Necessary context remains recoverable","domain_realization":"Protocol, estimand definition, sample flow, assignment, uncertainty, multiplicity handling, diagnostics, secondary results, and provenance remain available without alteration.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Effect is validated by audience interpretation","domain_realization":"Randomized report-format testing measures primary-estimand identification, decision accuracy, safety-signal detection, retrieval success, and review time.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Omission Candidate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Remove exploratory plots, decorative summaries, and non-decision diagnostics from the initial surface, not from the record."},{"component":"Protected Empty Space","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reserve an uncluttered region around the primary estimate, interval, decision threshold, and status."},{"component":"Positive Form Relationship","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"The reserved region frames the confirmatory result and makes its evidential role legible."},{"component":"Attention Competition Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Inventory report elements by evidential role, visual salience, decision relevance, and safety criticality before changing visibility."},{"component":"Absence Boundary","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"A template rule prohibits noncritical secondary material from entering the primary-result region."},{"component":"Clarity or Effect Test","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Test whether readers correctly identify the primary estimand and make the prespecified decision."},{"component":"Rest and Pacing Zone","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Place a clear transition between confirmatory interpretation and subsequent exploratory review."},{"component":"Meaning-of-Absence Check","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Label whether an absent result is not yet observed, not estimable, access-restricted, filtered, or available in the full record; absence never denotes zero effect."},{"component":"Reintroduction Trigger","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reveal full results on explicit audit/detail request, when a prespecified secondary criterion becomes decision-relevant, or immediately upon a safety flag."},{"component":"Accessibility and Recoverability Guardrail","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Provide keyboard and screen-reader access, printable full tables, stable links, and no hover-only or gesture-only reveal."},{"component":"Context Preservation Frame","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Keep estimand definition, uncertainty, sample flow, missingness, multiplicity policy, protocol deviations, and data status adjacent or directly linked."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"architectural_void","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Spatial monumentality and movement do not address inferential reading behavior beyond a loose metaphor.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or viability change."},{"slug":"blank_or_rest_frame","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Adapt as a labeled transition from confirmatory conclusion to exploratory material, not as an unexplained blank screen.","counterfactual_removal":"The intervention could still work, but confirmatory and exploratory phases would be less distinctly paced."},{"slug":"editorial_cut","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Move redundant or premature material off the initial surface while preserving a versioned, recoverable full report.","counterfactual_removal":"Attention competition would remain because all material would still occupy the initial surface."},{"slug":"empty_state_design","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Distinguish not observed, not estimable, filtered, restricted, and failed-to-load states so blankness cannot be read as no effect.","counterfactual_removal":"Missing or unavailable results could be dangerously misinterpreted, hard-gating safe use."},{"slug":"facilitation_silence","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"The target substrate is an asynchronous statistical report, not a power-sensitive group conversation.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or viability change."},{"slug":"focus_mode_or_control_hiding","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Hide only noncritical report layers behind an obvious single action; never hide safety outcomes, uncertainty, or data-quality warnings.","counterfactual_removal":"Either crowding persists or subtraction becomes irreversible concealment; viability materially changes."},{"slug":"margin_and_gutter_system","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Encode protected spacing and separation in the reusable report template.","counterfactual_removal":"The concept remains causal, but repeated reports are more vulnerable to clutter creep."},{"slug":"negative_space_logo","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Figure-ground symbolism has no defensible role in distinguishing evidential status.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or viability change."},{"slug":"pause_in_speech","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Live vocal pacing does not operate on the report substrate; the transition frame supplies the relevant pacing function.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or viability change."},{"slug":"sparse_layout","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Thin the initial result surface according to prespecified evidential and decision priority.","counterfactual_removal":"The primary estimand remains one item among many, breaking the proposed attention pathway."},{"slug":"whitespace","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use spacing to separate confirmatory, safety, and exploratory groups; validate perceived grouping rather than assuming it.","counterfactual_removal":"Omission may still help, but the test loses a controlled perceptual separation cue."}],"causal_chain":["Map which report elements compete with recognition of the primary estimand and exempt safety-critical context.","Move nonessential secondary and exploratory material from the initial surface into a labeled, recoverable layer.","Protect space around the primary estimate, uncertainty, and prespecified decision rule.","Readers more readily perceive the confirmatory result and its evidential status. [HYPOTHESIS]","Decisions rely less on visually salient exploratory fluctuations while auditability and safety detection are preserved. [HYPOTHESIS]"],"baseline":"A conventional dense report or dashboard showing primary, secondary, subgroup, diagnostic, and exploratory results together, with evidential status conveyed mainly through captions or headings.","nearest_rival":"A hierarchical report that retains every result on the initial surface but uses typography, color, ordering, or bold focal emphasis. It tests whether arrangement alone suffices without protected omission.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["analysts and reviewers","research participants","people subject to policy, clinical, or product decisions informed by the experiment"],"decision_authority":"The study owner and independent statistical or ethics reviewer jointly authorize the template; safety owners retain authority over mandatory visibility.","authorized_first_step":"Run a 40–80-person randomized, no-live-decision pilot using simulated experiment reports. Compare dense baseline, all-visible hierarchical rival, and protected-primary formats on correct primary-estimand identification, prespecified decision accuracy, review time, safety-signal detection, and full-detail retrieval.","excluded_actions":["hide adverse events, uncertainty, missingness, protocol deviations, or data-quality warnings","delete or alter secondary and exploratory results","use the format to suppress unfavorable findings","deploy it for live stopping or treatment decisions before review"],"halt_rollback":"Halt immediately if any safety-critical item is inaccessible, any participant cannot recover the full report, or interim pilot results show materially worse safety-signal detection. Roll back to the all-visible report and retain pilot logs for review."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Expert readers may benefit from dense side-by-side comparison, and errors may arise from weak statistical literacy or incentives rather than crowding. Reduced visibility could also facilitate selective reporting even when an appendix technically exists.","analogy_break":"Unlike decorative clutter, secondary outcomes, diagnostics, and adverse events can contain necessary evidence. Architectural or visual emptiness is benign; statistical omission can change inference or accountability, so recoverability and mandatory safety visibility are hard constraints.","failure_condition":"The approach fails if the evidential hierarchy cannot be prespecified, users overlook the reveal path, exploratory evidence is needed simultaneously for the decision, or the protected surface suppresses detection of harm or model failure.","problem_falsifier":"Across representative dense reports, intended users already identify the primary estimand and evidential status reliably and promptly, while observed decision errors are unrelated to element density or salience.","intervention_falsifier":"Crowding demonstrably impairs interpretation, but the protected-primary format does not outperform both the dense baseline and all-visible hierarchical rival on primary identification or decision accuracy, or it worsens safety detection or full-detail retrieval.","risks":["Selective-reporting or spin enabled by lowered initial visibility","Safety or model-diagnostic signals hidden with exploratory material","Novices interpreting absent content as zero effect or missing evidence","Accessibility failures in layered disclosure","Overgeneralization from simulated reports to live high-stakes review"]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"MECHANISM_COMPOSITION","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","evidence_maturity":"HYPOTHESIS"},"revision_change_log":{"revision_kind":"ORIGINAL","prior_problem_id":null,"prior_causal_lever_id":null,"problem_changed":false,"causal_lever_changed":false,"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"repairs_addressed":[]},"confidence":0.83,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The candidate concerns report interpretation, not reduction of the experiment's substantive scope; all results remain auditable and safety-critical evidence remains visible."}