{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__literature_literary_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2fc41b1ee9450bf1bb8bc39757fbaf0480fbc58fe82f8d6071668ecd4b04223f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The cue-attribution problem is independently recognizable in literary reception research, names observable consequences, and remains meaningful without modal terminology."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps an explicit reader-state transition, coupled state directions, modal responses, selection criteria, residuals, drift, and interpretation limits onto concrete domain objects."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Controlled cue-bundle edits connect the decomposition to an intervention that can outperform isolated-cue edits, while the held-out comparison separates modal description from actionable leverage."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All required components are translated, selected mechanisms have distinct roles, incompatible mechanisms are rejected coherently, and conditioning, degeneracy, coupling, residual, and local-validity limits are preserved."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and causal claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, uncertainty and halt conditions are stated, and the candidate does not present unsearched prior art or conjectural modes as established findings."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether repeatable coupled directions exist beyond ordinary models, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether modal-guided edits add leverage beyond isolated-cue edits."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is limited to consenting participants and lawful text use, disclaims interpretive authority, excludes consequential profiling and institutional decisions, and provides clear halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transformation, state, modes, gains, intervention map, residual budget, drift checks, and scope contract form a complete and traceable modal design."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The design respects contextual interpretation, recursive rereading, cohort variation, textual traceability, and the distinction between response patterns and meanings, though rating-based state variables remain reductive."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Randomized cue-bundle edits and held-out comparisons can test leverage, but edit feasibility and contextual equivalence may limit causal isolation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete domain realization, including often-omitted coupling, conditioning, spectral separation, residual, and governance elements."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses instability, measurement artifacts, story identity, cohort dependence, recursive interpretation, rival nonlinear models, and failure of intervention advantage."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The modal framing adds a useful distinction between salient individual cues and coupled response directions with measurable persistence and leverage."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The preregistered pilot, held-out stories, comparator interventions, thresholds, and rollback rule are executable, although reliable transition estimation may require substantial participant data."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded pilot could improve explanatory discipline at modest risk, with consent, lawful texts, prohibited uses, and conservative reporting containing the main harms."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book claim of methodological or domain novelty is warranted."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal establishes no evidence that this combination of reader-state transition modeling, spectral analysis, and unreliable-narrator experiments is novel relative to existing reception and computational-literary research.","repair":"Conduct a targeted prior-art review before making novelty or contribution claims, distinguishing precedents for coupled reader-response models from precedents for invariant-mode intervention tests.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched; this limits novelty assessment but does not undermine the internally specified structural and causal test."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair baseline against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate preserves the archetype's full modal logic while treating literary interpretation as locally measured, contextual, and non-authoritative. Its decisive strength is the separation of mode existence from intervention advantage through distinct held-out falsifiers. Novelty remains unevaluated because prior art was not supplied or searched."}