{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__speech_language_pathology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"7e94fb2e7eb778da5078db6ad133401a04d189d537bb9c5259d1f98280e426e3","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The dysarthria targeting problem is stated in domain terms and remains clinically meaningful without relying on the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal defines a coupled response operator, approximate invariant directions, modal responses, action selection, residual checks, drift monitoring, and bounded interpretation with traceable domain realizations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention logic connects reproducible coupled responses to bounded probe selection and tests added outcome leverage prospectively against a coordinate-level rival."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete, selected mechanisms have distinct roles, rejected mechanisms receive coherent dispositions, and conditioning, non-normality, residual structure, coupling, and local validity are preserved."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical existence and benefit claims are labeled as hypotheses, interpretations are bounded, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and no unsupported domain effect is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier can reject the need for a modal account, while the intervention falsifier can separately reject mode-guided targeting even if reproducible modes exist."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Patient consent and withdrawal, clinician authority, low-risk study limits, excluded actions, adverse-sign halts, and rollback to clinician-directed care are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The transformation-to-mode-to-leverage structure is fully instantiated and coupled to residual, drift, gap, and scope governance."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The speech measures, clinical objectives, actors, burdens, and safety limits are credible for dysarthria practice, although feasibility and measurement reliability remain empirical questions."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Sensitivity testing and prospective comparison support a plausible leverage test, but estimated response modes remain local descriptive constructs until intervention results establish added value."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component has a specific domain realization, and adaptations retain the original functional role without treating modes as biological modules."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses nonlinearity, adaptation, nonstationarity, poor conditioning, small gaps, residual omissions, and a strong coordinate-level rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal changes target selection from salient isolated impairments to reproducible coupled response patterns with outcome-sensitive leverage."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded feasibility design has observable outputs, preregisterable thresholds, a comparator, and clear halt rules, though repeated multivariate measurement may be burdensome."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential targeting and early-warning benefits are meaningful, while conservative authority boundaries and rollback controls contain the principal clinical risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The reframing appears distinctive within the packet, but prior art and adjacent clinical methods were explicitly not searched."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to dysarthria phenotyping, multivariate treatment-response modeling, and adaptive probe selection is unresolved.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making novelty or differentiation claims.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural distinctiveness only; it contains no external novelty evidence."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Feasibility depends on obtaining sufficiently reliable repeated measures to estimate a stable local operator without excessive patient burden.","repair":"Use the authorized feasibility study to estimate repeatability, conditioning, missingness, task-window stability, and burden before any treatment deployment.","evidence_boundary":"The proposal specifies appropriate tests but supplies no empirical feasibility results."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, clinically bounded, causally testable, and unusually strong against foreseeable modal-analysis failures. Its main unresolved issue is external novelty evidence, appropriately left unclaimed and suitable for follow-on research."}