{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__biology_ecology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"e48577e7fdfe6ec77a33bb3791d55e6eb70b3c64c4e339d46d8afcdd6347b7f1","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Temporal crowding is defined as an independently observable absence of sufficiently long disturbance-free intervals, distinct from aggregate visitation and from the proposed scheduling intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, bounded pacing, relationship to a positive form, and validation of the absence rather than relying on generic simplicity or reduction."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention directly changes the proposed exposure by creating verified contiguous low-disturbance periods, while the equal-use distributed rival isolates contiguity from total activity reduction."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, load-bearing and supporting mechanisms have explicit roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for mechanism-specific reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Ecological effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses, alternative explanations and detection error are named, and no novelty or population-level effect is asserted without evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, including covariate-adjusted diagnosis failure and failure against both baseline and the equal-total-use rival under adequate treatment separation."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to the responsible manager subject to consultation and access obligations, while the reversible pilot includes emergency exceptions, halt criteria, rollback, and displacement safeguards."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected temporal absence is the active design element, with explicit boundaries, buffers, reopening, positive-form relationship, and effect validation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal uses credible ecological observables and confounders while avoiding unsupported species-general claims; species and site parameters remain intentionally unspecified pending local review."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Reduced verified disturbance can plausibly enable wildlife behavior, and the comparator separates interval structure from aggregate-use reduction, but biological response remains site- and species-dependent."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into operational ecological counterparts without dropping context, recoverability, interpretation checks, or reintroduction rules."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses habitat, weather, season, predators, imperfect detection, spillover, displacement, boundary breaches, and the possibility that temporal protection is the wrong ecological form."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes moderate total use as potentially harmful temporal saturation and converts absence into a manipulable habitat-access condition rather than a vague call for less recreation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible crossover design, activity verification, matched comparison, sensor checks, and rollback are actionable, though local species timing, power, and implementation feasibility require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A reversible schedule could yield ecological benefit while preserving aggregate access, and the proposal recognizes equity, displacement, surveillance, enforcement, and wildlife-harm risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty and prior-art status are unknown.","repair":"During deep research, compare the design with wildlife temporal refuges, scheduled trail closures, recreation-allocation experiments, and equal-effort temporal controls before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"This does not weaken the closed-book structural judgment; it limits only novelty attribution and claims of precedence."}],"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. It faithfully translates protected negative space into bounded ecological quiet intervals, isolates the proposed causal feature with a strong rival, preserves hypothesis boundaries, and supplies distinct falsifiers plus reversible authority and safety controls. Deep research is warranted primarily for ecological parameterization and prior art, not to repair structural fit."}