{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__neuroscience","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"a0b504795e4b1869edb3adf866281985bf466cbcd7bb38f6c1baaa3ec4a76313","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies a domain-native monitoring failure involving distributed preictal dynamics, not merely a restatement of modal decomposition."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The local transition operator, multielectrode state, invariant directions, modal gains, residuals, drift, spectral separation, and interpretation limits correspond coherently to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal connects a growing distributed mode to warning and control, then separates predictive association from perturbational evidence needed to support suppression as a causal lever."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, and selected mechanisms have distinct decomposition, stability, sensitivity, validation, monitoring, operational, or governance roles with explicit removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Neuroscience-specific empirical propositions are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, the causal limitation of retrospective stimulation is disclosed, and no unsupported empirical result or novelty claim is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether a distributed mode adds held-out value, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether aligned stimulation changes the mode and downstream progression relative to specified comparators."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized test is retrospective and noninterventional, clinical authority and consent boundaries are explicit, prohibited actions are listed, and halt and rollback conditions preserve ordinary care."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's transformation, invariant-direction, gain, intervention-map, residual, drift, coupling, and bounded-use structure throughout."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The intracranial monitoring substrate, clinical actors, stimulation logs, patient-level validation, false-alarm burden, and electrode-coverage limits are appropriate, though empirical feasibility remains un demonstrated."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain is plausible and correctly treats prediction as insufficient for causation, but retrospective clinician-selected stimulation leaves substantial confounding for the proposed suppressive lever."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named components are translated into concrete neural-state, validation, monitoring, intervention, or governance objects without decorative omissions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts nonlinearity, nonstationarity, partial observation, non-normality, mode swapping, artifacts, confounding, rival prediction, and failure of distributed added value."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It changes the intervention target from active contacts or predictive features to distributed dynamical directions and makes basis validity itself an operational decision condition."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A retrospective replay with existing recordings and stimulation logs is feasible and well bounded, although reliable operator estimation and counterfactual stimulation analysis may be data intensive."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The initial study has low direct patient risk and potentially useful warning and targeting value, while prospective benefit remains conditional on stronger causal evidence and safety review."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is supported."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Prior-art status is unsearched, leaving novelty and overlap with existing dynamical seizure-control work unresolved.","repair":"Before asserting novelty, conduct a documented literature and trial-registry review focused on multivariate transition modes, preictal stability analysis, and mode-directed stimulation.","evidence_boundary":"The missing novelty evidence does not invalidate the proposal's structural coherence or its retrospective falsifiability."}],"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 could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally complete, domain-grounded, falsifiable conjecture with careful causal, evidentiary, and clinical boundaries. Its principal unresolved dimension is novelty rather than fit or testability."}