{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__art_aesthetics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"0d1af135a3ced1c436d14cf1095d037c5bc9bda87df73965a5ab6dbfb57cd74e","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The exhibition-legibility problem is specified independently of the proposed use of absence and includes observations that could falsify the diagnosis."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Crowding, disciplined omission, protected gaps, positive-form relationships, boundaries, recoverability, and audience validation have explicit domain realizations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed omissions and protected spacing plausibly reduce simultaneous perceptual competition and alter grouping and transition cues, with baseline and same-density recomposition comparisons."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component is translated, and selected mechanisms retain their distinctive operations, counterfactual roles, and relevant failure guards."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are labeled as hypotheses, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the proposal makes no unsupported authority or novelty claim."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the crowding diagnosis and the protected-gap intervention using observable interpretation, behavior, access, and inclusion outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is distributed across curatorial, contractual, conservation, preparation, and access roles; the initial action is reversible and has explicit exclusions, halt conditions, and restoration procedures."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining structure: intentional absence is bounded, related to what remains, protected against refill, and tested for perceptual effect."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, installation substrate, curatorial obligations, embodied circulation, artist visibility, lender constraints, and interpretive stakes are specific to exhibition practice."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Reduced competition and spacing-based grouping provide a coherent perceptual chain, though thinning and gap creation remain partly bundled within the pilot."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into concrete installation, governance, recoverability, interpretation, and testing functions without decorative relabeling."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses intentional salon density, adjacency-dependent meaning, scarce space, representation harms, misread gaps, access burdens, and novelty effects."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It turns whitespace from an aesthetic preference into a governed, reversible, audience-tested curatorial variable, although negative space is already familiar in visual composition."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded mock-hang, documented rollback, comparators, and observable outcomes make testing feasible, but decision thresholds and sampling procedures remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible bay-level pilot limits downside and protects essential context, while artist visibility, representation, and access harms still require close oversight."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the intervention or test design is novel."}},"weighted_total":85,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot changes artwork count and inter-work spacing together, limiting attribution between omission and protected-gap effects.","repair":"Add staged or factorial conditions that distinguish thinning alone, protected spacing alone, their combination, and same-density recomposition where feasible.","evidence_boundary":"The current causal chain supports the composite intervention but does not establish the independent contribution of each manipulated feature."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The test names outcomes without operational decision thresholds or a detailed sampling and analysis rule.","repair":"Predefine outcome instruments, accessibility strata, minimum detectable effects, exclusion rules, and restoration criteria before visitor exposure.","evidence_boundary":"Feasibility is supported by the bounded design, but empirical adequacy cannot be established from the closed-book packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty and relevant prior art remain unestablished.","repair":"Conduct a bounded review of exhibition-density experiments, museum visitor studies, salon-hang research, and spacing-based perceptual studies before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate appropriately labels prior art as unsearched and makes no novelty claim."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate clears the reject-first gates and qualifies for advancement. Its strongest features are direct structural correspondence, domain-specific ethical constraints, complete mechanism translation, distinct falsifiers, and reversible authority-bounded testing. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain to be established through research."}