{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__human_computer_interaction","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"e033b1ab90b17b03a6898117bda2cf2c202b2fb0d08caa3db50c36bb4f4622a5","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a native HCI problem involving coupled workflow breakdown patterns that is intelligible without the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The bounded transition operator, interaction-state vector, invariant directions, modal responses, intervention map, residual checks, and drift governance preserve the archetype's load-bearing structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed leverage runs from estimated propagation modes through controlled prototype perturbations to task and accessibility outcomes, with comparative testing capable of challenging the intervention claim."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, selected mechanisms retain their distinctive functions, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for structurally relevant reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Substantive claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and no empirical validation or novelty finding is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled modal propagation exists and adds value, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether a mode-targeted prototype improves outcomes without prohibited harm."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with a cross-functional review group; the first step is bounded and aggregate; person-level labeling, automated adverse action, and unreviewed rollout are excluded; halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transformation, modes, gains, selection, control, residual, drift, and scope-contract relationships are all preserved and made decision-relevant."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses recognizable HCI substrates, outcomes, accessibility concerns, interface-version effects, telemetry limitations, and prototype evaluation practices."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Controlled prototype comparison can test leverage, but allocation, confounding control, and the distinction between changing a mode and changing its measurement remain underspecified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, traceable, and operationally coherent, including often-omitted coupling, gap, residual, and retirement controls."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts adaptation, nonstationarity, instrumentation artifacts, non-normality, degeneracy, subgroup harm, and rival explanations with meaningful halt criteria."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts diagnosis from isolated events and averages to coupled propagation directions and changes intervention selection from symptom targeting to modal leverage."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded retrospective analysis and accessible prototype comparison are feasible, though the operator-estimation and trial protocols require further operational specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The staged, reversible test offers useful diagnostic upside with strong safeguards, but unstable aggregate modes and telemetry governance still create material interpretation and implementation risk."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence supporting a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The operator-identification protocol is not sufficiently specified to distinguish interaction dynamics from task mix, missingness, instrumentation changes, and aggregation artifacts.","repair":"Preregister the estimation unit, interval definition, scaling, missing-data handling, regularization, resampling-stability procedure, and matched-version exclusion rules.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a testable modeling proposal but contains no fitted operator or validation results."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The prototype comparison does not fully specify causal assignment or how modal change will be separated from altered telemetry.","repair":"Define controlled assignment, invariant instrumentation, baseline and rival estimands, mediation checks, and harm-aware stopping rules before testing.","evidence_boundary":"The causal chain is plausible, but causal effects and modal mediation remain prospective."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No evidence supports distinctiveness from existing HCI, sequence-modeling, or dynamical-systems work.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and record direct precedents, nearest implementations, and the proposal's remaining differentiator.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty must remain undetermined until external research is performed."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original record 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 structurally faithful, domain-grounded, falsifiable transfer with credible leverage and unusually strong residual, drift, accessibility, authority, and rollback controls. Its main unresolved boundaries concern empirical operator identification, causal trial detail, and unsearched prior art rather than structural fit."}