{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__art_aesthetics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"140a50c654fc1072a768a019e4d96742e9eb6916d40d40f43e804c76388a4a1e","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The runaway-feedback problem is independently observable through motif growth, oscillation, saturation, collapse, and safety excursions without relying on modal terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The renderer is an explicit repeated transformation over a coupled state, and the proposal preserves the archetype's basis, gain, selection, intervention, residual, drift, and scope structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Bounded control perturbations connect controllable renderer inputs to consequential modal changes and compare resulting damping against both coordinate tuning and a black-box rival."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All required components are translated, selected mechanisms have distinct causal or governance roles, and rejected mechanisms receive technically coherent dispositions. Conditioning, coupling, and non-normal behavior remain explicit limitations rather than hidden assumptions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels its maturity as hypothetical, leaves prior art unsearched, claims no demonstrated effectiveness or novelty, and provides no fabricated empirical findings or citations."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled directions add predictive value, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether mode-targeted control improves consequential outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial test is offline and reversible, aesthetic and safety authority are separated, prohibited interpretations and actions are explicit, and halt conditions restore the recorded baseline."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal closely instantiates a bounded coupled transformation, invariant directions, modal response, intervention mapping, residual validation, and drift governance."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The state, actors, objectives, controls, aesthetic risks, exhibition setting, and semantic limits are specific to feedback-based generative visual art."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The perturbation-to-estimation-to-damping chain is credible locally, but descriptor dependence, rapid nonstationarity, and non-normal transient amplification could weaken the inferred leverage."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component has an explicit domain realization with traceability from renderer dynamics back to visual descriptors and permitted controls."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonlinearity, representation dependence, degeneracy, conditioning, transient growth, intent distortion, monitoring latency, and semantic overreach."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts diagnosis from isolated sliders and aggregate image statistics to coupled visual directions with distinct growth, sensitivity, and control consequences."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"Recorded segments, reversible perturbations, held-out seeds, comparator methods, residual checks, and rollback make a pilot feasible, though intent proxies and consequence-weighted budgets still require preregistration."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"An offline pilot offers useful diagnostic and safety value with bounded exposure, while automated damping still risks suppressing intentional instability or missing rapid viewer-relevant excursions."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art 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 primary control chain can miss transient amplification in a non-normal local operator even when eigenvalue-based classifications appear acceptable.","repair":"Before any live use, preregister a non-normality and transient-growth audit that determines when eigendirection control must be suspended or supplemented.","evidence_boundary":"The packet recognizes this failure mode but supplies no result showing that the proposed operating regime avoids it."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Intent proxies, consequence-weighted residual budgets, and acceptance thresholds are named but not operationally fixed.","repair":"Define artist-approved proxy measures, held-out evaluation procedures, threshold-setting rules, and disagreement handling before collecting pilot outcomes.","evidence_boundary":"The design is testable as written, but the packet contains no empirical calibration or validated proxy-to-intent relationship."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to generative-art control, visual-feedback stabilization, and spectral system-identification work is unknown.","repair":"Conduct scoped prior-art research before making novelty or distinctiveness claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly reports an unsearched prior-art status and makes no novelty claim."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repair registry, and no revision history from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-specific, falsifiable, and authority-bounded transfer suitable for deeper research. Its principal unresolved issues are empirical calibration, non-normal transient behavior, and absent novelty evidence."}