{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__cultural_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"6b4ebda7b9d186508f6182affa2b264e44f421ae1ce47ea83312ba7a7bd33853","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The persistence of coupled representational patterns is a domain-legible problem independent of modal terminology, with affected parties, observable states, and consequences clearly specified."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps bounded transitions, coupled features, modal gains, intervention coordinates, residuals, drift, and interpretation limits to concrete cultural-analysis practices."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed leverage runs from validated cross-feature persistence through sensitivity analysis to bundle-level editorial review, while a consented rewrite comparison tests whether the brief changes relevant outcomes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive substantive translations, selected mechanisms have distinct functions and removal consequences, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for reasons consistent with their limitations."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness and stability are consistently bounded as hypotheses, novelty is explicitly unsearched, and the proposal does not present external findings or authority as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled persistence exists, whereas the intervention falsifier separately tests whether the modal brief improves outcomes against both comparators."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Shared governance, corpus constraints, prohibited uses, nonpublication of stigmatizing rankings, stopping conditions, withdrawal handling, and rollback to qualitative review adequately bound authority and harm."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transfer preserves the archetype's transformation, coupled state, modal ranking, intervention mapping, residual checking, drift monitoring, and bounded interpretation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The design treats meaning as contextual and contested, incorporates community judgment, preserves qualitative interpretation, and explicitly rejects cultural essentialism and mechanical causation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The leverage pathway is coherent and experimentally falsifiable, but predictive bundle sensitivity alone cannot establish that editorial changes cause culturally consequential improvement."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, internally consistent, and reinforced by well-differentiated mechanism dispositions and counterfactual-removal statements."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts reflexivity, coding artifacts, regime change, semantic instability, low-variance harms, rival models, and the limits of statistical independence."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Bundle-level analysis materially challenges isolated-trope review, although the named coordinate-space rival may capture much of the same predictive structure without modal reduction."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"Temporal holdouts, reconstruction tests, rival comparisons, coder checks, and a consented rewrite exercise are executable, but adequate serial data and stable local estimation remain demanding."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A retrospective and governed feasibility phase offers useful diagnostic value with bounded deployment risk, while reification, suppression of ambiguity, and stigmatization remain material hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty evidence is available within the closed-book record."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The record contains no prior-art evidence for the claimed transfer or intervention design.","repair":"Conduct a bounded literature and practice review covering computational cultural analysis, longitudinal representation coding, dynamic latent-factor methods, and community-governed editorial review before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"This evaluation can credit structural originality only within the supplied packet and cannot establish external novelty."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The modal brief has not yet demonstrated incremental value over the coordinate-space rival.","repair":"Preregister an ablation comparing predictive validity, interpretability, community validity, and rewrite outcomes under modal reduction versus the otherwise identical regularized coordinate model.","evidence_boundary":"The present causal chain supports feasibility testing, not comparative effectiveness."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs or revisions to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first review as a carefully bounded structural transfer with strong domain safeguards and distinct falsifiers. Its chief unresolved issue is absent novelty evidence, while comparative effectiveness against the coordinate-space rival remains an empirical research question."}