{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__ethnography_qualitative_methods","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ffb43e683f303092b14647f2467dc6db48d78f213fd9f86a26b554fa59667800","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently stated as the loss of reproducible coupled temporal configurations under single-code analysis, with observable consequences and a falsifier that do not presuppose modal terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"A bounded episode-to-episode operator, coupled state representation, approximate modes, modal responses, selection rules, residual checks, drift monitoring, and scope limits provide close structural correspondence to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention changes analytic attention and sampling through configuration-guided case review, while comparative evaluation against thematic and sequence-aware rivals can test whether that guidance improves reconstruction, negative-case discovery, or analytic revision."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain translations, selected mechanisms have distinct roles, rejected mechanisms have principled reasons, and conditioning, non-normality, coupling, residual, and drift risks are explicitly handled."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Claims are bounded as hypotheses, inferences, or corpus observations; efficacy and prior-art status are not asserted as established, and no unsupported citations or empirical results are presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled structure exists beyond ordinary analysis, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether modal guidance adds value when such structure exists."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is retrospective and read-only, participant manipulation and individual ranking are excluded, authority remains with the research team under consent and oversight, and halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype’s transformation, coupled-state, modal-response, selection, residual, drift, and bounded-validity structure without reducing it to generic dimensionality reduction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The design respects contextual meaning, reflexivity, coding provenance, negative cases, theoretical sampling, consent, and the distinction between descriptive constructs and participant realities."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The pathway from modal analysis to altered case attention and documented analytic revision is plausible and testable, though its value depends strongly on defensible segmentation, coding, and local transition stability."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every listed component is translated into a concrete qualitative-research operation or governance constraint, with no material component silently dropped."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses coder artifacts, segmentation sensitivity, prompt repetition, observation imbalance, non-normality, small gaps, rare cases, and comparison with a strong nonmodal rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes temporal qualitative structure from isolated code salience to coupled configuration dynamics, although careful manual sequence comparison may recover some of the same insight."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A retrospective held-out pilot is feasible and includes comparative outcomes, but many ethnographic corpora may be too small, irregular, or unstable for reliable operator estimation."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The read-only pilot offers meaningful analytic upside with bounded direct risk, while reification, disclosure, and compression harms remain credible if governance fails."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim despite the proposal’s apparent differentiation."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal supplies no prior-art evidence for novelty.","repair":"Conduct a bounded search for modal, spectral, dynamic-state, and transition-operator methods in qualitative and mixed-methods research before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The missing search does not undermine the internally bounded structural proposal, but novelty remains wholly unestablished."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-sensitive structural transfer with explicit comparative tests, residual preservation, interpretive limits, and safety controls. Its main unresolved weakness is the complete absence of prior-art evidence, while empirical usefulness remains conditional on a defensible and locally stable episode-state representation."}