{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__communication_media_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"4f05c5d3fde218f71fcd0cd957be6cbeb4fa17c1f66c78ce171f7cb9e18bf3b5","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The monitoring blind spot is independently recognizable in media analysis and is defined without relying on modal terminology for its existence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal explicitly maps a bounded transition operator, coupled state, approximate modes, modal responses, selection rules, residuals, drift, interpretation limits, and spectral separation into domain-specific counterparts."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The decomposition changes investigative prioritization and alert timing rather than merely redescribing traffic; downstream benefit remains appropriately framed as a testable hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive traceable translations, selected mechanisms have distinct functions and removal consequences, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with the proposed use."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Observational, causal, and semantic limits are clearly bounded; prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no novelty or causal authority is inferred from the decomposition."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier compares detection and residual performance against surface monitors and the nearest rival, while the intervention falsifier separately tests reviewer and downstream-response consequences."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step is retrospective and deidentified, live sanctions are excluded, decision authority is separated, and explicit privacy, disparity, residual, drift, and gap halt conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate preserves the archetype's coupled transformation, action-relevant modal response, traceability, residual visibility, and drift-governance structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Frames, sources, channels, communities, exposure records, editorial review, platform governance, coding uncertainty, and viewpoint risks are treated as substantive media-domain constraints."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Earlier modal detection could plausibly accelerate evidence review, but lagged predictive structure does not itself establish causal influence and downstream harm reduction remains prospective."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component has a concrete realization, and adaptations retain the original component's decision or governance function."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses strategic adaptation, nonstationarity, coding instability, missing exposure, non-normality, near-degeneracy, comparison rivals, and mode reification."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal shifts monitoring from isolated messages and aggregate coordinates to coupled temporal directions that can become consequential before individual thresholds fire."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded retrospective shadow test is executable and preregistrable, although reliable cross-channel exposure measurement and transition estimation may be demanding."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"Potential detection benefit is tested through reversible investigative alerts while privacy review, proportionality constraints, auditability, and sanction separation sharply limit initial harm."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no prior-art evidence for novelty relative to dynamic narrative, diffusion, and temporal network-monitoring methods.","repair":"If novelty becomes decision-relevant, conduct a scoped comparison against established dynamic topic, frame, cascade, and spectral monitoring approaches and identify any independently supported distinction.","evidence_boundary":"The present record supports structural quality and testability, not originality."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The observational transition operator may mix predictive association, platform feedback, measurement artifacts, and genuine propagation.","repair":"Preserve predictive language in alerts and require separate identification evidence before interpreting a mode or sensitivity result causally.","evidence_boundary":"Held-out prediction and natural shocks can validate forecasting utility but do not automatically identify causal transmission."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, falsifiable, and safety-bounded monitoring transfer; its main unresolved boundary is originality, which it appropriately does not claim."}