{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__rhetoric","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"52d4bc3a3ed9a5097a5ac9806d7afb3e5a62f5e955a36f71e9e73ebc3e663439","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies an independently recognizable rhetoric problem: coupled subgroup backlash can be hidden by aggregate and coordinate-wise message metrics."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The audience-response state, local transformation, coupled directions, modal responses, intervention map, residuals, and drift controls correspond coherently to the archetype while remaining explicitly local and approximate."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Randomized message variants, modal sensitivity analysis, and a held-out comparison of revisions provide a plausible route from combined message features to changes in the harmful response pattern."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms have distinct functions, rejected mechanisms have relevant reasons, and residual, coupling, conditioning, gap, and interpretation safeguards preserve mechanism integrity."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical existence and stability claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the candidate does not present external validation as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem claim and intervention claim have separate falsifiers, with direct factorial modeling as a serious rival and equal-cost held-out comparisons capable of defeating the proposed lever."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is consented and ethics-approved, advancement authority is shared, prohibited persuasive practices are explicit, and halt conditions address distress, comprehension, subgroup harm, residual failure, and modal instability."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":3,"reason":"The modal correspondence is strong and complete, though the exact separation between the square audience-state operator and exogenous message-feature inputs remains underspecified."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses rhetoric-relevant constructs, preserves truthful deliberation and audience autonomy, recognizes contextual interpretation, and compares against a credible domain-native experimental rival."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Randomization and sensitivity testing support the proposed causal path, but reproducible local response modes and their controllability remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named components are translated into operational rhetoric-domain counterparts with appropriate adaptations and scope limits."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts reflexivity, heterogeneity, survey covariance, instability, essentialization, subgroup harm, and the possibility that ordinary factorial models perform equally well."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal shifts diagnosis from isolated phrases and aggregate outcomes to coupled response patterns, yielding a materially different monitoring and revision strategy."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded preregistered pilot with training and held-out samples is executable, although stable modal estimation may require demanding measurement quality and sample size."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains in detecting hidden backlash are meaningful, and extensive safeguards bound misuse, while residual risks from persuasive optimization and audience reification remain."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing multivariate rhetoric or communication research."}},"weighted_total":82.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal invokes a square response operator while also treating message features as transformation inputs, leaving the state-transition and control-input roles partially conflated.","repair":"Before implementation, specify a state-space estimand that separates the audience-state transition operator from the message-feature intervention matrix, or explicitly define and justify an augmented square state.","evidence_boundary":"This is an operational specification gap; the packet supplies no empirical evidence that either formulation will produce stable rhetorical modes."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the 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 passes the reject-first gates and qualifies for deeper research. Its strongest features are complete component translation, explicit rival and falsifier design, and unusually careful authority and interpretation limits; the main remaining uncertainty is empirical novelty and whether a stable local audience-response operator can actually be identified."}