{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__architecture_urban_planning","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"06e8bde96033b1fe95596731d1acfcad208ab94b425c1d1bda0f216779008af7","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently observable civic-arrival problem involving hesitation, route conflict, obstruction, and entrance legibility rather than merely asserting that the forecourt lacks negative space."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's defining structure: identified competitors are selectively removed, the resulting absence is bounded and protected, and that absence clarifies a specified positive form."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever can plausibly affect both perceptual entrance recognition and physical path conflict, while the candidate correctly treats the effect as a hypothesis subject to a reversible field test."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All supplied components receive functional domain translations, and the selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, or guardrail roles with credible counterfactual-removal statements."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are bounded as hypotheses, structural claims are labeled as inference, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and no fabricated authority or site evidence is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed crowding association exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected openness improves outcomes without unacceptable losses."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal assigns decision authority, includes accessibility review and affected-party consultation, limits the initial action to a reversible pilot, excludes coercive displacement and removal of required infrastructure, and supplies concrete rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Deliberate protected absence is the active organizing intervention, with explicit competitors, boundaries, positive-form relationships, preservation rules, and audience-effect tests."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in forecourt circulation, accessible approaches, sightlines, movable site elements, event permitting, public-space operations, weather exposure, and legitimate civic uses."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from competing objects through bounded separation to improved recognition and fewer conflicts is credible, but site geometry, entrance visibility, and edge displacement could moderate or reverse it."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The complete component set is translated into observable spatial, operational, interpretive, accessibility, and restoration functions rather than attached as labels."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest rival diagnosis, explains where the analogy breaks, distinguishes failure from success, and identifies social, climatic, accessibility, and safety hazards."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It productively reframes reactive object-by-object clearing as the design and governance of a durable arrival field whose absence organizes movement and meaning."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible pilot, baseline documentation, observations, user reports, audit targets, and rollback rules are executable, though sampling, comparison thresholds, and measurement procedures remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Reversibility and preservation guardrails limit downside, but exclusion, lost activity, weather discomfort, reduced incidental observation, and boundary conflict require site-specific monitoring."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The candidate explicitly reports that prior art was not searched, so no novelty credit can be supported closed-book."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot lacks prespecified sampling periods, comparison thresholds, and procedures for separating arrival-field effects from changes in events, weather, entrance operations, or visitor mix.","repair":"Before implementation, define representative observation windows, operational measures, comparison criteria, accessibility-review procedures, and contextual variables that must be recorded.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports testability in principle but does not establish that the proposed observation design can attribute any measured change to the intervention."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No prior-art evidence supports novelty or distinguishes the proposal from established forecourt-clear-zone, pedestrian-circulation, accessibility, or plaza-management practice.","repair":"Conduct a documented prior-art review and state whether the contribution is novel, a composition of known practices, or a context-specific application.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty and prevalence cannot be inferred from the supplied packet because its prior-art status is explicitly unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears every reject-first gate and presents a structurally faithful, domain-specific, reversible, and falsifiable application of protected absence to civic arrival. Remaining limitations concern empirical calibration and unsearched novelty rather than structural fit or safety authority."}