{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__aviation_aeronautics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"6ac976aba526c31d3f4a7456228838f9cc8d40c5e931d6723ce6f44f8f045345","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The display-crowding problem is independently stated in aviation terms and remains meaningful without the archetype analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps competing display elements, deliberate omission, protected absence, preserved context, recoverability, and perceptual validation to concrete display operations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Local suppression and protected spacing plausibly expose conflict geometry and reduce visual search and display-management demand; the claim remains explicitly hypothetical and testable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive direct or defensible adapted realizations, while selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, or safety roles and rejected mechanisms are appropriately bounded."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Effectiveness claims are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art uncertainty is disclosed, and no unsupported empirical result or authority claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the crowding diagnosis and the protected-buffer intervention against both the ordinary display and a salience-only rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step is nonoperational and bounded, critical information is exempt from suppression, affected parties and decision authority are identified, and explicit halt and rollback conditions are provided."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected absence is the active intervention rather than an aesthetic label, and its relationship to the conflict geometry is explicit."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal respects continuous surveillance, controller authority, dynamic traffic state, display stability, uncertainty cues, and certification boundaries, though domain-specific prevalence and effectiveness remain unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from occlusion and competition through reversible decluttering to reduced search demand is coherent, but operational benefit and peripheral-context costs require simulation evidence."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, operationally differentiated, and includes boundaries, meaning checks, reintroduction, recoverability, and context preservation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts loss of peripheral cues, spatial-memory disruption, misleading absence, reveal burden, density limits, and unjustified confidence with relevant falsifiers and rollback rules."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal usefully reframes conflict-display improvement from adding salience to protecting perceptual space, while remaining adjacent to established decluttering concepts."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A simulator comparison, baseline, rival, outcomes, and halt conditions are specified, but activation logic, scenario sampling, and quantitative safety margins still need protocol-level definition."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible simulator study has favorable learning value and limited immediate exposure, while any operational translation retains serious context-loss and automation-surprise risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing air-traffic display decluttering or label-management approaches."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The novelty position is unsupported because relevant prior art has not been examined.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, compare the protected-buffer composition with existing controller-display decluttering, label-placement, focus-region, and conflict-presentation methods.","evidence_boundary":"The current packet supports a testable concept, not a novelty claim."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The simulator protocol lacks prespecified quantitative safety margins and detailed activation criteria.","repair":"Define scenario strata, buffer activation and expiry rules, allowable reveal burden, and decision thresholds for missed secondary traffic, false responses, workload, and layout instability before testing.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed measures and halt logic are suitable foundations, but they do not yet constitute a complete validation 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 passes every reject-first gate and presents a coherent, safety-bounded, falsifiable translation of protected negative space into controller-display decluttering. Its principal limitation is absent novelty evidence, with a secondary need for protocol-level operating thresholds before deep evaluation."}