{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__psychology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"02c53b61f508ffdaaaaa8b839b5e1338686be459f83d7d2e8ce2a6741122c51e","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The depressive-deterioration problem is specified independently of the modal solution, with observable consequences, an ordinary-care baseline, and a problem falsifier."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's coupled transformation, invariant directions, modal gains, action-relevant selection, residual visibility, drift monitoring, and bounded interpretation."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever targets a coupled amplifying pattern rather than merely renaming symptoms, while explicitly treating intervention effectiveness as a testable hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component is translated, load-bearing mechanisms have counterfactual-removal tests, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for domain-relevant reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical existence, stability, and actionability are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences; no unsupported result is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled modes add anything beyond direct indicators, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether mode-targeted support changes outcomes relative to a rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The silent pilot preserves patient consent and clinician authority, prohibits autonomous clinical action, and supplies explicit suppression, rollback, privacy, and escalation boundaries."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transformation-to-mode structure is preserved with explicit traceability, stability boundaries, residual checks, spectral separation, and drift governance."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The design respects noisy intensive longitudinal measurement, treatment responsiveness, reflexivity, consent, clinical interpretation limits, and licensed care authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from coupled transition dynamics to a candidate leverage point is coherent, but simulation sensitivity cannot itself establish that mapped supports causally damp the mode."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The complete component set receives concrete psychological realizations, including conditioning, coupling, local validity, residual budgets, and output suppression."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses unstable identity, non-normality, missingness, treatment confounding, rival predictors, false alerts, reflexivity, and failure of causal actionability."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It shifts monitoring from isolated symptom levels toward coupled directions of escalation while retaining comparison against simpler and unrestricted predictive models."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A silent prospective pilot is operationally clear and measurable, though person-specific transition estimation may require burdensome sampling and enough observations for stable fitting."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Silent deployment, usual-care preservation, and hard suppression gates limit initial risk, while later alerting or intervention would still require evidence on burden and benefit."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness relative to existing personalized symptom-network and dynamical monitoring work is not evidenced."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The causal lever remains supported by model perturbation rather than identified intervention effects.","repair":"Use the silent pilot to qualify prediction and stability, then evaluate mode-mapped support against an intensity-matched symptom-targeted rival under clinician-controlled assignment.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports causal plausibility and a falsifiable test, not effectiveness."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing personalized dynamical symptom modeling is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review before making any novelty claim and state whether the contribution is the modal formulation, the safety-gated workflow, or neither.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can confirm internal differentiation but cannot establish external novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-bounded, falsifiable, and safety-governed. Its main unresolved matters are empirical causal effectiveness and external novelty, both appropriately withheld rather than asserted."}