{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__accounting_auditing","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"b598dbdefdda060163791e45b7f873488be8951ab7c911b156c3ad1b2b8746d2","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Exception-signal crowding is independently recognizable through missed, delayed, or revisited exceptions and does not depend on accepting the archetype analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps competing elements, deliberate omission, protected absence, explicit empty-state meaning, and recoverable context to concrete audit-review structures."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Recoverable suppression and protected spacing plausibly reduce attention competition, while empty-state diagnosis blocks a critical false-completion pathway. The final performance effect is correctly bounded as a hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, and selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, or guardrail roles with explicit counterfactual-removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate makes no unsupported effectiveness claim, labels inferential status, identifies its evidence maturity as hypothetical, and proposes a controlled comparison rather than presenting conjecture as fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether crowding is associated with failures, while the intervention falsifier separately tests the proposed design against a sorting or filtering rival and includes harm outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prototype authority is bounded, professional judgment and sign-off remain with authorized auditors, required evidence cannot be deleted, live-opinion use is excluded, and halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Deliberate, bounded absence is the active intervention rather than a decorative sparse aesthetic, and it remains tied to the exception signal it clarifies."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves audit scope, population, materiality, provenance, traceability, evidentiary access, professional judgment, and engagement authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention-competition pathway is coherent and guarded against misleading absence, but its effect on expert audit performance remains experimentally unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component is translated into a specific interface rule, state distinction, measurement, recovery behavior, or preserved audit context."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest rival benefit of dense population views, distinguishes audit blankness from ordinary whitespace, and specifies multiple harm-sensitive falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes a generic prioritization problem as governed omission and protected perceptual space while preserving the evidence that conventional decluttering might remove."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A de-identified replay comparison with fixed cases and an unchanged baseline is feasible, though tolerances, sampling, and assignment procedures still require protocol specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible sandbox test has plausible detection and efficiency benefits with strong rollback controls, while concealment and population-pattern risks remain material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no prior-art evidence for novelty in audit-review interfaces or workpaper systems.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and distinguish any existing exception-focused, progressive-disclosure, and empty-state designs from the proposed protected-space composition.","evidence_boundary":"This is a novelty-evidence limitation only; the closed-book packet supports no conclusion about external prior art."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The experimental protocol leaves tolerances, sampling, and assignment details undeclared.","repair":"Predeclare primary outcomes, harm thresholds, reviewer assignment, case mix, recovery-error definitions, and stopping rules before replay testing.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate supplies a viable test concept but not a complete statistical or operational protocol."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong structural translation: bounded, recoverable absence performs causal work on exception visibility while audit completeness, authority, accessibility, and falsifiability remain intact. Its main unresolved weakness is absent novelty evidence, with a secondary need for a predeclared experimental protocol."}