{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__behavioral_economics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"6f53d92e537f34fd9d16f99af90524dd485b483dd468bcb94839f83878107a65","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently specified through sequential choice, observable displacement of private signals, and degraded information aggregation rather than merely restating crowding or omission."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's defining structure: attention competition, deliberate bounded absence, a protected interval, preserved positive form, explicit reintroduction, and effect testing."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Temporarily delaying public signals acts directly on their timing relative to private judgment, while provisional recording makes the proposed mediating behavior observable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, rejected mechanisms are distinguished coherently, and delayed information remains recoverable."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Effectiveness and prior art are explicitly bounded as untested; empirical statements are framed as hypotheses or falsifiable inferences, with no unsupported authority claims or fabricated findings."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether social cues actually displace private-signal use, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected sequencing improves outcomes against both baseline and prompt rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first test is consented, reversible, and low stakes; material disclosures and safety information are excluded from withholding; participant choice authority, halt criteria, accessibility checks, and rollback are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal translates protected absence into a bounded temporal and interface structure without reducing the archetype to generic simplification."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, observables, causal vocabulary, and outcomes align closely with behavioral-economic accounts of social learning, information cascades, bounded attention, and independent signal aggregation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The sequencing lever plausibly protects initial private evaluation, though diagnostic social information and weak private evidence could eliminate or reverse the benefit."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, operationally specific, and internally consistent across omission, boundaries, meaning, restoration, context, accessibility, and validation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses diagnostic social evidence, novice burden, malfunction interpretations, manipulation concerns, weak private signals, and the risk of merely postponing imitation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Negative space reframes social influence as a timing and protected-attention problem, producing a distinct intervention beyond information removal or a generic debiasing prompt."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposed simulated comparison has implementable conditions, measurable mediators and outcomes, a meaningful rival, explicit restoration behavior, and clear halt criteria."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible low-stakes trial has favorable learning value, but accessibility burdens, added friction, distrust, and loss of useful social evidence remain credible risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so originality is not evidenced within the closed-book packet."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The packet does not establish whether protected private-evaluation intervals or closely equivalent staged-reveal designs already exist.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any novelty claim, while keeping effectiveness claims separate from originality claims.","evidence_boundary":"The present judgment supports structural merit and test readiness only; it does not support novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and offers a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, reversible, and falsifiable application. Its principal unresolved boundary is prior-art evidence, which limits novelty claims but does not undermine the proposed test."}