{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__archaeology_paleontology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"8efee7a5bd4ecf987cb20dc0feb0690e17758fe91fbd423722087c1a34ebe515","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently specified as evidence-relation occlusion and ambiguity in archaeological GIS, with observable states, consequences, affected actors, and a domain objective that remain meaningful without the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Layer competition, reversible suppression, protected gaps, semantic absence cues, and recoverable context correspond directly to crowding, deliberate omission, bounded absence, meaning checks, and context preservation."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention targets display competition and occlusion through question-specific suppression and perceptual separation, while semantic cues address the distinct error of treating display blankness as archaeological absence."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, and the selected mechanisms retain their distinctive operations: disciplined reversible cutting, focus restoration, protected spacing, perceptual separation, and diagnosis of empty states."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical benefit is bounded as a hypothesis, claim kinds are conservative, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the candidate does not present invented archaeological findings or validation results."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes display competition from missing or incorrect records, while the intervention falsifier separately tests relation detection, blank-state interpretation, and omitted-context harm against an unchanged baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed test is reversible and limited to non-sensitive completed data; archival records, provenance, uncertainty, dissent, restricted information, and accountable interpretive authority are expressly protected."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Absence is an active, bounded intervention that clarifies named positive forms rather than serving as a sparse aesthetic, and the mapping preserves the archetype's central invariants."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal respects archaeological distinctions among observation, excavation coverage, preservation, missing data, hidden layers, uncertainty, provenance, and evidential absence."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from reduced competition and protected separation to improved relation detection is credible and testable, but remains empirically unvalidated in the supplied domain packet."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally specific, including restoration, accessibility, semantic absence diagnosis, context retention, and effect testing."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses selective interpretation, loss of dense comparison, blank-region misreading, inaccessible recovery controls, and the presentation-versus-evidence analogy break."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes map clutter as both an attention-allocation problem and an epistemic-status problem, yielding a coherent intervention that ordinary layer toggling does not fully supply."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible blinded comparison with relevant outcomes and rollback conditions is feasible, though minimally meaningful effect thresholds and detailed task sampling remain unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The first step is bounded, reversible, low-cost, and preserves the unchanged record, while explicit halt conditions limit interpretive and disclosure risk."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports unsearched prior art and supplies no comparative literature or practice review establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no evidence that its composition is novel relative to archaeological GIS cartography, uncertainty visualization, decluttering, or provenance-aware focus views.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, conduct a scoped prior-art review and state which elements are established practice, which are recombined, and which are genuinely distinctive.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural merit and testability but contains no novelty evidence."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The comparison names outcomes but does not define minimally meaningful improvement or omitted-context thresholds in advance.","repair":"Preregister task sampling, scoring rules, meaningful-effect thresholds, and a criterion for unacceptable contextual error before exposing readers to either view.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed study design is operationally credible, but the supplied text does not fully specify its decision rule."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original submission with no prior repair cycle, changed problem identifier, or changed causal-lever identifier; the remaining evidence gap is not attributable to a revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong structural transfer grounded in archaeological display and evidential semantics. Its reversible intervention, distinct falsifiers, and provenance safeguards justify deeper empirical research, while novelty remains wholly unestablished."}